(^^C^ 


ti^'mrmA^ 


1    1     >     > 


'-^'^bv  W.G-.JcLckman  ■ 


•i  «     • 


Ia^-^t  "Toii  ,     D .  AppletoXL  fc  C ^ 


SPEECHES 


AND 


OCCASIONAL   ADDRESSES. 


BY 


JOHN  A.  DIX. 


VOL.  I. 


»  •>.     O       1  >     * 


NEW  YORK: 
D.   APPLETON   AND    COMPANY, 

443   AND   445  BEOADWAT. 

1864. 


4*- 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1864,  by 

D.  Appleton  and  Company, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


KIVBBSIDE,    CAMBRIDGE: 
STEEEOTYPED  AND  PBINTED  BY  H.  O.  HOUGHTON. 


TO    MY  WIFR 

You  have  known  for  several  years  my  intention  to 
collect  and  publish  for  preservation  and  reference  the 
speeches  which  I  delivered  on  the  leading  questions 
of  the  day,  while  representing  the  State  of  New  York 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  They  form  the 
greater  part  of  the  material  of  these  volumes.  I  have 
added  several  occasional  addresses  and  a  few  of  the 
numerous  official  reports  made  by  me  during  my  con- 
nection with  public  affairs.  This  collection,  designed 
chiefly  to  make  those  who  are  to  come  after  us,  ac- 
quainted with  the  part  I  have  borne  in  the  national 
movement  during  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  extraor- 
dinary activity  and  excitement,  I  dedicate  to  you,  as 
an  imperfect  acknowledgment  of  the  intelligent  and 
devoted  cooperation  which  you  have  lent  me  in  all 
the  vicissitudes  and  labors  of  my  life. 

John  A.  Dix. 


224090 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  L 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

PAGZ 

THE  OREGON  QUESTION 1 

A  speech  delivered  on  the  18th  and  19th  of  February,  1846,  on  the 
Kesolution  giving  to  Great  Britain  twelve  months  notice  for  the  ter- 
mination of  the  joint  occupancy  of  the  Oregon  Territory. 

FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS 60 

A  speech  delivered  on  the  27th  of  April,  1846,  on  the  Bill  to  provide 
for  the  Satisfaction  of  Claims  of  American  Citizens  for  Spohations 
on  their  Property  committed  by  the  French. 

THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM 104 

I.  A  speech  on  the  bill  to  amend  the  Twelfth  Section  of  the  Act 
of  August  30,  1842,  delivered  on  the  19th  of  June,  1846. 

n.  A  speech  on  the  same  bill  in  reply  to  Mr.  Huntington  of  Con- 
necticut, delivered  on  the  9th  of  July,  1846 124 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL   OF  THE  ARMY 163 

Remarks  on  a  bill  to  appoint  a  Lieutenant-General,  delivered 
on  the  4th  of  January,  1847. 

THE  THREE  MILLION  BILL 179 

A  speech  on  the  bill  to  appropriate  three  millions  of  dollars  for  the 
expenses  of  negotiations  with  Mexico,  delivered  on  the  1st  of 
March,  1847. 

THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO 198 

A  speech  delivered  on  the  26th  of  January,  1848. 

MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL   STATES 247 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  appropriation  for  a  mission  to 
the  Papal  States,  delivered  on  the  21st  of  March,  1848. 

CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS 262 

A  speech  delivered  on  the  29th  of  March,  1848. 

THE  YUCATAN  BILL 284 

A  speech  delivered  on  the  Bill  to  take  temporary  Military  Posses- 
sion of  Yucatan,  delivered  on  the  17th  of  May,  1848. 


yi  CONTENTS. 

A  TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON 309 

A  speech  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis,  of 
Mississippi,  to  the  Bill  establishing  a  territorial  government  in  Oregon, 
deliyered  on  the  26th  of  June,  1848.  m 

GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES 346 

A  speech  on  the  subject  of  organizing  governments  for  the  territo- 
ries acquired  from  Mexico,  delivered  on  the  26th  of  July,  1848. 

TRADE  WITH  CANADA 383 

A  speech  in  support  of  a  bill  providing  for  reciprocal  trade  "with 
Canada,  delivered  on  the  23d  of  January,  1849. 

TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO 413 

A  speech  on  an  amendment  to  an  appropriation  bill,  providing  a 
government  for  California,  delivered  on  the  28th  of  February,  1849. 


^ 


s^^ 


SPEECHES    IN   THE    SENATE. 


THE    OKEGON    QUESTION. 

FEBRUAEY  18  and  19, 1846. 

The  Territory  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America,  west  of  the  Kocky 
Mountains,  known  as  Oregon,  and  long  in  dispute  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  was,  by  a  convention  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, concluded  on  the  20th  October,  1818,  made  free  to  the  vessels, 
citizens,  and  subjects  of  both,  for  the  period  of  ten  years.  This  agree- 
ment was  continued  in  force  and  indefinitely  extended  by  the  conven- 
tion of  26th  August,  1827.  In  consequence  of  collisions  between  the 
people  of  the  two  countries  within  the  disputed  Territory,  resolutions 
were  introduced  into  the  Senate,  in  February,  1846,  requiring  the 
President  to  give  notice  of  the  abrogation  of  the  last-mentioned  con- 
vention, in  accordance  with  one  of  its  stipulations.  A  portion  of  the 
senators  were  in  favor  of  adjusting  the  controversy  by  adopting  the 
49th  parallel  of  latitude  as  the  boundary,  leaving  to  Great  Britain  the 
territory  north  of  it ;  and  the  others  of  insisting  on  the  abandonment 
by  Great  Britain  of  the  whole  country  as  far  north  as  54°  40',  from 
which  line  northward  the  title  of  Russia  had  been  acknowledged  by 
both  the  parties  to  the  pending  dispute.  Mr.  Dix,  while  asserting 
the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  whole  Territory  derived  from  the 
discoveries  and  occupation  of  Spain,  was  nevertheless  in  favor  of  the 
compromise  line  of  49°,  which  had  been  oflfered  to  Great  Britain  in 
previous  negotiations. 

The  question  was  settled  by  the  adoption  of  that  parallel  as  the 
boundary  Hne,  under  a  treaty  negotiated  by  Mr.  Louis  McLane,  and  rat- 
ified by  the  Senate  at  the  same  session  in  which  the  debate  took  place. 

In  entering  into  the  debate  on  the  question  under  con- 
sideration, I  feel  constrained  to  differ  in  opinion  with  two 
distinguished  senators  who  have  preceded  me,  in  relation 
to   the    manner    in    which    the    discussion    should    be    con- 

VOL.   I.  1 


'^"  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

ducted.  I  allude  to  the  Senator  from  Ohio/  who  opened 
the  debate,  and  the  Senator  from  Delaware,^  who  followed 
him.  Both  took  the  ground,  and  with  equally  strong  lan- 
guage, that  the  title  to  Oregon  ought  not  to  be  drawn 
into  this  discussion ;  but  for  totally  different  reasons : 
the  Senator  from  Ohio,  because  the  time  for  discussing 
it  had  gone  by;  and  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  because 
the  time  for  discussing  it  had  not  arrived.  With  the  un- 
feigned respect  which  I  entertain  for  both  senators,  I  dis- 
sent from  their  opinions  with  great  diffidence  of  my  own. 
But  I  am  constrained  to  regard  the  question  of  our  rights 
in  Oregon  as  one  on  which  the  propriety  of  the  measures 
proposed  peculiarly  and  eminently  depends.  What  is  the 
proposition  before  the  Senate  1  It  is,  to  give  to  Great 
Britain  the  notice  of  twelve  months,  by  virtue  of  which 
the  treaty  between  her  and  the  United  States,  stipulating 
that  the  Territory  of  Oregon  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the 
people  of  both  countries,  is  to  be  abrogated  and  annulled. 
We  cannot  disguise  the  fact  that  this  is  a  measure  of  the 
most  decided  character,  and  involving  the  most  important 
consequences.  What  is  it,  sir,  but  a  declaration  that  the 
Territory  of  Oregon,  after  the  expiration  of  twelve  months,  ■ 
shall  no  longer  be  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  ?  ■ 
It  is  the  first  step  towards  the  assertion  of  our  right  of  ■ 
empire  and  domain  in  Oregon.  I  can  see  it  in  no  other 
light.  I  shall  support  it.  But  I  cannot  assent  to  the  pro- 
priety of  adopting  a  measure  of  such  magnitude,  without 
saying  a  single  word  in  illustration  of  our  title  to  the  Ter- 
ritory, over  which  we  are  thus  preparing  to  assert  our 
paramount  rights.  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  take  such  a 
step,  denying  summarily  all  right  in  others,  or  abstaining 
from  the  assertion  of  any  right  in  ourselves. 

I  propose,  therefore,  as  a  preliminary  of  action  on  my 
own  part,  to  look  at  our  title  to  Oregon, — not  for  the 
purpose  of  defining  it  with  critical  precision,  but  so  far  as 

1  Mr.  Allen.  2  Mr.  J.  M.  Clayton. 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  3 

to  state  the  general  grounds  on  which  it  rests.  And  I  am 
disposed  to  take  this  course,  not  only  with  a  view  to  justify 
the  vote  I  intend  to  give,  but  for  the  further  purpose  of 
correcting  extreme  misconceptions,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
on  a  few  points  of  vital  consequence.  No  purely  American 
question  has,  perhaps,  excited  a  stronger  interest  in  other 
countries ;  and  I  doubt  whether  any  other  has  been  so 
greatly  misrepresented.  The  same  misapprehensions  exist 
at  home.  The  public  press,  for  the  last  few  weeks,  has 
been  teeming  with  essays  disparaging  the  Spanish  title,  on 
which  our  own,  in  some  degree,  rests.  I  am  unwilling 
either  to  pass  by  these  statements  in  silence,  or  to  meet 
them  with  summary  declarations  of  right.  It  is  natural  that 
senators  who  have  been  long  on  this  floor,  and  who  have 
already  borne  a  part  in  the  discussion  of  this  question,  should 
feel  differently.  But  for  myself,  having  never  even  hstened 
to  a  debate  on  the  subject,  —  a  subject  until  recently  entirely 
new  to  me,  —  I  feel  bound  to  state  the  grounds  on  which 
I  act.  This  is  what  I  propose  to  do,  —  not  by  the  analysis 
of  any  particular  treatise,  nor  by  the  examination  of  any  par- 
ticular view  of  the  subject,  but  by  exhibiting  some  of  the 
historical  facts  on  which  the  Spanish  title  and  our  own  rest. 
I  shall  endeavor  to  perform  this  duty  in  the  plainest  manner, 
adhering  rigidly  to  the  subject,  and,  if  possible,  without 
addressing  a  single  word  to  prejudice  or  passion. 

The  region  which  now  constitutes  the  Territory  of  Oregon 
was  seen,  and  a  part  of  its  coast  reconnoitred,  —  I  will 
not  say  explored,  —  half  a  century  after  the  discovery  of 
America.  In  consequence  of  its  remoteness  from  the  course 
of  trade  which  was  opened  by  the  voyages  of  Columbus,  the 
supposed  rigor  of  its  climate,  and  the  certainty  derived  from 
the  expeditions  sent  out  from  Mexico,  that  it  contained  no 
sources  of  wealth  like  those  by  which  Spain  had  been  en- 
riched in  the  more  southern  portions  of  this  continent,  it 
remained,  for  more  than  two  centuries  and  a  half,  without 
any  permanent  settlement  by  civihzed  men.     During   this 


4.  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

long  period,  Spain  constantly  asserted  her  right  of  propri- 
etorship in  it  by  virtue  of  discovery,  and  had  formed  tem- 
porary establishments  in  its  neighborhood  from  time  to  time. 
During  the  half  century  which  succeeded,  it  was  frequently 
visited  by  ships  of  other  nations,  by  accident,  for  purposes 
of  exploration,  or  for  objects  of  commerce,  and  thus  there 
arose  a  number  of  claimants  to  the  right  of  sovereignty  and 
domain.  The  claims  of  Kussia  have  been  adjusted  with 
Great  Britain.  She  holds,  by  the  acquiescence  of  the  latter, 
the  whole  northwest  coast  of  America  north  of  latitude 
54*°  40',  as  far  back  as  the  first  range  of  highlands ;  and, 
by  virtue  of  a  convention  between  her  and  us,  we  have 
agreed  to  form  no  settlements  north  of  that  parallel.  The 
southern  line  of  Oregon  we  hold  to  be  fixed,  by  the  settle- 
ment of  the  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico,  at  4<£°.  The  territory  in  dispute  has,  therefore,  a 
coast  of  twelve  parallels  and  two  thirds  of  latitude,  running 
back  into  the  interior  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  ;  and  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  are  the  only  claimants  to 
the  right  of  proprietorship  in  it. 

Before  I  proceed  to  examine  their  respective  claims,  it 
may  be  proper,  as  the  subject  has  been  referred  to  on  this 
floor,  briefly  to  state  the  conditions  under  which,  by  the 
usage  of  nations,  a  right  of  property  in  lands  uninhabited, 
or  occupied  by  wandering  tribes,  may  be  acquired. 

The  basis  usually  relied  on  to  support  a  right  of  this 
nature  is  discovery;  but  it  is  a  ground  of  right  which  be- 
comes untenable,  unless  followed  by  an  actual  occupation  of 
the  discovered  territory.  If  a  title  is  not  perfected  by  occu- 
pation, a  second  discoverer  may  appropriate  the  territory 
thus  neglected  by  the  first.  But  this  must  be  upon  reason- 
able evidence  of  the  intention  of  the  first  discoverer  not  to 
take  possession  of  it.  If  a  second  discoverer  were  to  seize 
upon  and  appropriate  the  discovered  territory  before  the 
first  had  time  to  form  an  establishment  within  it,  such  an 
act  of  interference  would  be  regarded  as  an  unwarrantable 


THE    OREGON   QUESTION.  5 

intrusion,  which  the  latter  might  justly  resist.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  first  discoverer  neglects  within  a  reason- 
able time  to  take  actual  possession  of,  to  form  settlements 
in,  or  make  some  actual  use  of  the  regions  he  has  discov- 
ered, the  law  of  nations  will  not  acknowledge  in  him  any- 
absolute  right  of  property  in  or  sovereignty  over  it,  even 
though  he  may  have  set  up  monuments  or  memorials  of  his 
discovery  at  the  time  it  was  made.  Such  is  the  spirit  of 
the  rules  in  relation  to  the  discovery  and  occupation  of  un- 
inhabited territory,  as  stated  by  writers  on  international  law. 
It  is  certainly  not  easy  to  lay  down  any  invariable  rule  in 
respect  to  the  time  within  which,  or  the  circumstances  under 
which,  a  title  by  discovery  must  be  perfected  by  occupation. 
The  rules  and  maxims  of  international  law  are  but  a  practi- 
cal application  of  the  principles  of  universal  equity  and  jus- 
tice ;  and  in  the  settlement  of  questions  of  this  nature,  the 
real  objects  and  intentions  of  the  parties  are  to  be  sought 
for  in  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  their  acts.  I  believe, 
however,  the  doctrine  may  be  fairly  deduced  from  the  whole 
body  of  the  law  on  this  subject,  that  rights  by  discovery 
remain  good  until  superseded  by  rights  of  occupation. 
With  regard  to  Great  Britain,  I  think  I  may  safely  say  that 
her  practical  rule  pushes  this  doctrine  farther.  She  resists 
all  attempts  by  others  to  acquire  rights  by  occupation  in 
territories  which  she  has  discovered,  and  thus  renders  her 
own  rights  by  discovery  perpetual.  Lieutenant  Broughton, 
in  the  armed  tender  Chatham,  discovered  the  Chatham 
Islands,  in  1791?  after  parting  company  with  Vancouver, 
on  their  way  to  the  northwest  coast.^  She  has  not  occupied 
them  until  recently ;  and  I  am  not  sure  that  there  is  now 
anything  more  than  a  whaling  establishment  on  them ;  but 
she  insists  that  no  other  power  shall  occupy  them,  because 
it  would  be  injurious  to  her  settlements  in  New  Zealand, 
which  are  nearly  five  hundred  miles  distant  from  them. 
I  propose  now  to  see  what  acts  have  been  performed  in 

^  See  Vancouver's  Journal,  Book  I.  chap.  11. 


g  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

respect  to  Oregon  by  different  nations ;  or,  in  other  words, 
to  examine  the  nature  of  the  discoveries  which  have  been 
made,  and  the  establishments  which  have  been  formed  in 
that  region,  applying  to  them  as  I  proceed  the  principles  I 
have  concisely  stated. 

The  first  discoverer  of  any  part  of  the  northwest  coast  of 
America  north  of,  or  in  immediate  contiguity  with,  the 
boundary  between  us  and  Mexico,  was  Ferrelo.  He  was 
the  pilot  of  Cabrillo,  the  commander  of  an  expedition  fitted 
out  in  Mexico  in  1548,  fifty-one  years  after  the  discovery 
of  San  Domingo  by  Columbus.  Cabrillo  died  on  the  voyage, 
and  Ferrelo  succeeded  to  the  command.  He  examined  the 
coast  from  the  Santa  Barbara  Islands,  in  latitude  34°,  to 
the  48d  parallel  of  latitude ;  but  the  latter  part  of  his  voyage 
was  made,  I  believe,  without  landing,  and  by  a  mere  in- 
spection of  the  coast  from  his  vessel.  In  1535,  eight  years 
before  this  exploration  was  made,  possession  had  been  taken 
of  California  by  Fernando  Cortes,  in  the  name  of  Spain, 
and  an  establishment  had  been  formed  in  24f°  of  north 
latitude.  This  establishment  was  kept  up  for  several  years ; 
and,  in  the  mean  time,  the  Gulf  of  California  to  its  northern 
extremity,  with  the  western  coast  as  high  as  38°  north  lati- 
tude, had  been  explored.  These  explorations,  and  the  estab- 
lishments formed  in  carrying  them  on,  were  all  made  in  pur- 
suance of  a  settled  purpose  on  the  part  of  Spain  to  extend 
her  dominion  over  the  uninhabited  territory  on  the  northwest- 
ern coast  of  America.  The  discoveries  to  which  these  ex- 
plorations led  were,  therefore,  not  accidental.  The  expedi- 
tions were  fitted  out  for  the  single  object  referred  to.  In  the 
prosecution  of  this  design,  it  is  true,  the  most  arrogant  and 
absurd  pretensions  were  set  up  by  Spain  in  respect  to  the 
exclusive  navigation  of  the  Pacific ;  but  these  must  not  be 
permitted  to  prejudice  her  just  claims  to  portions  of  the  con- 
tinent washed  by  its  waters,  on  the  ground  of  discovery  and 
occupation,  and  the  declared  purposes  she  had  in  view. 

The  next  navigator  who  appeared  on  the  northwest  coast 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  7 

was  Sir  Francis  Drake.  He  left  Eng^land  in  1577,  on  a 
predatory  expedition  against  the  dominions  of  Spain  in  the 
Pacific.  In  1579,  after  having  accomplished  his  object, 
and  carried  devastation  and  terror  into  the  unprotected 
Spanish  settlements  on  the  coast,  he  landed  in  38°  north 
latitude,  in  a  bay  supposed  to  be  that  of  San  Francisco, 
and  passed  five  weeks  in  repairing  his  vessel.  He  took 
possession  of  the  country,  and  called  it  New  Albion.  It 
is  pretended  that  Sir  Francis  Drake  followed  the  coast  as 
far  north  as  48° ;  but  the  best  authorities  fix  the  northerly 
limit  of  his  examination,  which  was  a  mere  inspection  from 
his  vessel,  at  48°,  —  the  supposed  boundary  of  Ferrelo's  in- 
spection more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  before.  As  the 
British  negotiators  have  abandoned  Drake's  expedition  as  a 
part  of  the  basis  of  their  claim,  I  will  not  dwell  upon  it, 
excepting  to  add  that  his  examinations  were  accidental ; 
they  were  not  made  in  pursuance  of  any  purpose  of  ex- 
ploration or  settlement;  they  led  to  the  discovery  of  no 
new  territory ;  and  they  were  not  followed  up  by  an  actual 
occupation  of  the  soil.  For  two  centuries  no  claim  to 
territorial  rights,  that  I  am  aware  of,  was  set  up  by 
Great  Britain  on  the  ground  of  Drake's  pretended  dis- 
coveries. 

The  next  explorer  was  the  Greek  pilot,  Juan  de  Fuca, 
who  was  sent  to  the  northwest  coast  in  1592,  thirteen  years 
after  Drake,  by  the  Viceroy  of  Mexico,  for  the  purpose  of 
discovering  the  imaginary  Strait  of  Anian,  supposed,  at 
that  day,  to  connect  the  north  Pacific  with  the  north  At- 
lantic Ocean.  In  the  prosecution  of  his  voyage  he  entered 
an  extensive  inlet  from  the  sea,  as  he  supposed,  between 
the  47th  and  48  th  parallels  of  latitude,  and  sailed  more 
than  twenty  days  in  it.  Such  is  his  own  account  as  de- 
tailed by  Michael  Lock ;  and  it  accords,  as  well  as  his  de- 
scriptions, so  nearly  with  the  actual  nature  of  the  localities, 
that  it  is  now  generally  conceded  to  be  substantially  true ; 
and  his  name  is  conferred  by  universal  consent  on  the  strait 


3  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

between  the  48th  and  49th  parallels  of  latitude.  Spain 
had  thus  made  discoveries  on  the  northwest  coast  before 
the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  as  far  north  at  l^st  as 
the  48th  degree  of  latitude ;  and  the  nature  of  the  explora- 
tions, from  their  extent  and  the  settled  purpose  in  pursu- 
ance of  which  they  were  made,  excludes  all  claim  of  dis- 
covery by  others  down  to  that  period  of  time. 

In  1608,  Vizcaino,  a  distinguished  naval  commander, 
under  an  order  from  the  King  of  Spain,  made  a  careful 
survey  of  the  coast  of  California  to  Monterey,  in  the  S7th 
parallel  of  latitude  ;  and  he  also  explored  the  coast  as  far 
north  as  the  43d  parallel,  giving  names  to  several  bays 
and  promontories  as  he  advanced.  During  the  seventeenth 
century,  at  least  seven  different  attempts  were  made  by 
the  Spaniards  to  form  establishments  in  California ;  but, 
from  the  hostility  of  the  natives  and  other  causes,  these 
attempts  failed,  so  far  as  any  permanent  settlement  is  con- 
cerned, excepting  the  last,  which  was  made  in  1697'  But, 
within  sixty  years  from  this  time,  sixteen  principal  estab- 
lishments were  formed  by  the  Jesuits  on  the  western  coast 
of  America,  between  the  Gulf  of  California  and  Cape  Men- 
docino, one  of  >\^hich  was  in  the  bay  of  St.  Francisco,  near 
the  38th  degree  of  latitude.  During  the  whole  period 
from  the  landing  of  Fernando  Cortes  in  California,  and 
the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Spain  had  uni- 
formly asserted  her  title  to  the  northwest  coast  of  America, 
and  had,  from  time  to  time,  made  efforts  not  only  to  ex- 
tend her  discoveries  there,  but  to  perfect  her  right  of  em- 
pire and  domain  by  permanent  establishments. 

In  1774,  Perez  was  ordered  by  the  Viceroy  of  Mexico 
to  proceed  to  60°  north  latitude,  and  explore  the  coast 
south  to  Monterey,  and  to  take  possession,  in  the  name 
of  the  King  of  Spain,  of  the  places  where  he  should  land,  to 
He  succeeded  in  reaching  the  54th  parallel,  within  two 
thirds  of  a  degree  of  the  northern  boundary  of  the  dis- 
puted  territory,   whence    he    returned   along   the    coast   to  ^  ^ 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  9 

Washington's  Island,  as  it  was  called  by  Captain  Gray, 
or  Queen  Charlotte's  Island,  as  it  was  afterwards  named 
by  the  British  navigators.  In  latitude  49°  30'  he  entered 
a  capacious  bay,  where  he  remained  for  some  time,  trading 
with  the  natives,  —  the  same  bay,  beyond  all  question,  which 
was  four  years  afterwards  called  King  George's  Sound, 
by  Captain  Cook,  and  is  now  known  as  Nootka  Sound. 

The  next  year,  (Vj'^d^)  Heceta  sailed  as  far  north  as  the 
48th  degree  of  latitude,  and  explored  the  coast  south,  filling 
up  the  outhne  which  Perez  had  left  incomplete.  He  had 
previously  landed  at  41°  ICV,  and  erected  a  cross,  with  an 
inscription  setting  forth  that  he  had  taken  possession  of  the 
country  in  the  name  of  his  sovereign.  In  latitude  46°  VJ' 
he  discovered  a  rapid  current  outward  from  the  land,  oppo- 
site to  an  opening  which  he  immediately  pronounced  to 
be  the  mouth  of  a  river.  From  him  it  was  first  called  the 
Entrada  de  Heceta,  and  afterwards  the  river  St.  Roc.  He 
made  repeated  attempts  to  enter  it,  but  was  constantly 
baffled  by  the  violence  of  the  current.  This  is  now  con- 
ceded to  have  been  the  mouth  of  the  river  Columbia,  which 
was  discovered  and  entered  by  Captain  Gray,  of  Boston, 
seventeen  years  afterwards. 

During  the  same  year  the  coast  was  also  explored  from 
the  56th  to  the  59th  degrees  of  latitude  by  Quadra  (y 
Bodega)  and  Maurelle,  who  erected  crosses  in  testimony 
of  their  discoveries.  On  their  return,  they  visited  the  coast 
at  the  47th  degree  of  latitude,  and  explored  it  from  the 
45th  southwardly  to  the  42d. 

It  will  be  perceived  by  these  details,  which  I  have  deemed 
it  necessary  to  state  with  some  particularity,  that,  previous 
to  1778?  the  year  in  which  Captain  Cook  visited  the  north- 
west coast,  the  Spaniards  had  examined  it  with  great  care 
and  perseverance  from  37°  to  49°  S(y,  They  had  also 
examined  it  from  the  54th  to  the  59th  parallels,  and  visited 
It  at  intermediate  points.  And  in  these  explorations  they 
were  wholly  without  competitors,  excepting  on  the  part  of 
2 


JQ  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

some  Russian  navigators,  who  had  made  discoveries  north 
of  the  56th  parallel,  and  Drake,  who  had  visited  the  coast 
at  the  88th.  During  the  two  centuries  which  intervened 
between  the  expedition  of  Drake  and  the  third  voyage  of 
Cook,  no  attempt  had  been  made,  nor  any  design  indi- 
cated, on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to  avail  herself  of  any 
pretended  claim  by  virtue  of  the  transient  visit  of  the  former 
to  the  coast;  while  Spain  constantly  asserted  her  right  to 
it  by  virtue  of  previous  and  subsequent  discoveries.  And 
in  California  and  its  neighborhood  she  had,  after  repeated 
efforts,  succeeded  in  effecting  the  permanent  occupation  of 
the  country,  which  was  her  earnest  object, — an  object  which 
no  other  power  during  that  long  period  had  even  in  contem- 
plation. 

The  third  voyage  of  Captain  Cook,  undertaken  in  17775 
gave  the  first  indication  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  to  appropriate  such  parts  of  the  northwest  coast  of 
America  as  she  considered  open  to  settlement,  and  subject 
them  to  her  dominion.  He  was  instructed  to  take  posses- 
sion, in  the  name  of  the  King,  of  convenient  situations  in 
the  countries  he  might  discover  that  had  not  been  al- 
ready discovered  or  visited  by  any  other  European  power. 
In  1778  he  landed  at  Nootka  Sound,  in  49°  33'  north  lati- 
tude, where  he  remained  nearly  a  month,  trading  with  the 
natives  and  refitting  his  vessel.  I  believe  this  was  the  only 
.point  within  the  Territory  in  dispute  at  which  Captain  Cook 
landed ;  and  it  is  proved  by  its  latitude  to  be  the  same  bay 
which  Perez  discovered  four  years  before,  and  in  which  he 
passed  some  time,  like  Captain  Cook,  trading  with  the  na- 
tives. The  subsequent  explorations  of  the  latter  were  made 
farther  north  —  I  believe  he  did  not  see  the  coast  south  of 
55  — with  a  view  to  the  discovery  of  a  passage  between 
the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  oceans ;  and  they  have  no  bearing 
on  the  question  under  discussion. 

The  explorations  of  Captain  Cook  gave  no  title  whatever 
to  Great  Britain  on  the  score  of  discovery — the  only  place 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  H 

where  he  landed  having-  been  previously  visited  by  Perez. 
Besides,  if  she  had  gained  a  contingent  right  of  possession 
by  virtue  of  his  explorations,  she  did  not  proceed  to  perfect 
her  title  by  a  formal  occupancy.  The  neglect  of  Great 
Britain  to  take  actual  possession  of  Nootka  Sound,  even 
if  she  had  gained  a  contingent  right  by  discovery,  is  con- 
clusive against  any  claim  on  her  part  to  a  right  of  property 
in  it.  For  eight  or  nine  years  the  British  flag  was  not  once 
unfurled  there,  as  I  can  learn,  although  the  place  had,  in 
the  mean  time,  been  visited  by  navigators  of  other  nations; 
and  it  was  not  until  several  years  later  still  that  it  was  even 
entered  by  a  public  armed  vessel  of  Great  Britain  ;  and 
then,  not  until  the  Spanish  Government  had  taken  forma) 
possession  of  it. 

In  1787?  Berkeley,  an  Englishman,  in  the  service  of  the 
Austrian  East  India  Company,  saw  the  Strait  of  Juan  de 
Fuca,  but  without  attempting  to  enter  it.  In  like  manner, 
Meares,  a  lieutenant  in  the  British  navy,  though  in  the  ser- 
vice of  a  Portuguese  merchant,  and  sailing  under  the  flag 
of  Portugal,  sent  a  boat  a  few  miles  into  the  strait  in  I788, 
having  learned  from  Berkeley  that  he  had  rediscovered  it  the 
preceding  year.  Meares  also  explored  the  coast  in  the  vicin- 
ity of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River,  and  came  to  the 
conclusion,  to  use  his  own  language,  that  "  no  such  river  as 
that  of  St.  Roc  exists,  as  laid  down  in  the  Spanish  charts."^ 

As  the  transactions  in  which  Meares  was  engaged,  on 
the  northwest  coast,  are  intimately  connected  with  the  claim 
of  Great  Britain  to  a  right  of  joint  occupancy  in  respect  to 
Oregon,  I  trust  it  will  not  be  deemed  superfluous  if  I  ex- 
amine them  somewhat  in  detail. 

Before  making  the  explorations  above  referred  to,  Meares 
had  landed  at  Nootka  Sound,  and  left  a  party  to  build  a 
small  vessel.  He  had,  for  a  trifling  consideration,  obtained 
the  grant  of  "a  spot  of  ground"  from  Maquinna,  the  king 
of  the  surrounding  country,  to  build  a  house  for  the  accom- 

1  Voyages,  ^c,  John  Meares,  Esq.,  p.  168. 


12  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

modatlon  of  the  party.  The  occupation  was  avowedly  for 
a  temporary  purpose ;  and  he  had  stipulated  with  Maquinna 
to  restore  the  possession  to  him,  when  he  (Meares)  should 
finally  leave  the  coast.-^  In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year, 
he  left  Nootka  Sound  with  his  vessels,  one  of  which  win- 
tered in  China,  and  the  two  others  in  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
I  should  have  before  observed  that  he  arrived  at  Nootka 
Sound  with  two  vessels,  the  Felice  and  the  Iphigenia  ;  and 
the  third,  the  Northwest  America,  was  built  there  during 
the  summer.  In  the  mean  time,  the  Columbia  and  the 
Washington,  two  American  vessels  from  Boston,  entered 
the  sound  and  passed  the  winter ;  and,  from  all  the  testi- 
mony relating  to  the  subject,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
lot  occupied  by  Meares  was  abandoned,  or  restored  to  Ma- 
quinna, in  pursuance  of  the  agreement  between  them.  Dur- 
ing all  this  time,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  Meares  was  sailing 
under  the  Portuguese  flag ;  and  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  he 
carried  with  him  instructions  to  repel  by  force  any  attempt 
on  the  part  of  Russian,  Spanish,  or  English  vessels,  to  seize 
him,  or  carry  him  out  of  his  way.  He  was  further  in- 
structed, in  case  he  was  successful  in  capturing  his  assailant, 
to  send  the  vessel  to  China,  to  be  condemned,  and  the  crew 
to  be  tried  as  pirates ;  ^  and  yet,  sir,  notwithstanding  he  was 
sailing  under  a  foreign  flag,  with  orders  to  treat  his  Britan- 
nic Majesty's  subjects  as  pirates,  in  case  they  molested  him, 
the  British  Government  does  not  scruple  to  found  its  title 
to  Oregon  on  his  voyage! 

Though  the  vessels  of  Meares  sailed  under  the  Portuguese 
flag,  and  under  the  name  of  a  Portuguese  subject,  he   as- 

1  "Maquinna  had  not  only  most  read-  "The  chief  was  also  requested  to 
ily  consented  to  grant  us  a  spot  of  show  every  mark  of  attention  and 
ground  in  his  territory,  whereon  a  friendship  to  the  party  we  should  leave 
house  might  be  built  for  the  accommo-  on  shore  ;  and,  as  a  bribe  to  secure  his 
dation  of  the  people  we  intended  to  attachment,  he  was  promised,  that  when 
leave  there,  but  had  promised  us  also  we  finally  left  the  coast,  he  should  en- 
his  assistance  in  forwarding  our  works,  ter  into  full  possession  of  the  house, 
and  his  protection  of  the  party,  who  and  all  the  goods  and  chattels  there- 
were  destined  to  remain  at  Nootka  dur-  unto  belonging."  — lb.  p.  130. 
ingourabsence."— Foya^es,  ^-c.by  John  ^  Appendix  to  Meares's  Voyages, -ga- 
Meares,  p.  114.  pers  No.  1. 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  13 

serted,  in  his  memorial  to  Parliament,  that  the  parties  in 
interest  were  British  merchants.  I  desire  to  state  the 
whole  truth,  and  therefore  I  give  a  fact  I  have  not  seen 
noticed.  At  page  17^  of  his  "  Voyages,"  it  will  be  seen 
that  he  took  possession  of  the  Straits  of  Juan  de  Fuca,  in 
the  name  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  in  July,  1788. 
But,  independently  of  the  objection  to  claims  founded  upon 
the  transactions  of-  an  individual,  who,  under  the  most 
favorable  view  that  can  be  taken  of  him,  had  sought  the 
protection  of  a  foreign  flag  to  perpetrate  frauds  on  the 
revenue  laws  of  China,  this  unauthorized  act  of  taking  pos- 
session under  such  a  flag  was  preceded  many  years  by  simi- 
lar formalities  on  the  part  of  the  Spanish  navigators,  under 
express  orders  from  their  sovereign.  The  twofold  character 
which  Meares  united  in  his  person  certainly  gave  him  mani- 
fest advantages,  both  as  a  trader  and  a  discQverer.  He  was 
a  Portuguese  captain  when  defrauding  the  revenue  laws  of 
China  for  the  benefit  of  British  subjects,  and  a  British 
lieutenant  when  encroaching  on  the  territorial  rights  of 
Spain,  for  the  benefit  of  the  British  sovereign. 

On  the  6th  of  May,  1789,  Martinez,  a  Spanish  naval 
commander,  with  two  public  armed  vessels,  entered  Nootka 
Sound,  with  instructions  to  assert  and  maintain  the  para- 
mount rights  of  Spain  to  the  place  and  to  the  adjacent 
coasts.  The  Iphigenia  and  the  Northwest  America,  two 
of  Meares's  vessels,  had  returned  from  the  Sandwich  Islands, 
still  sailing  under  Portuguese  colors,  and  arrived  in  the 
sound  on  the  20th  of  April,  sixteen  days  before  Martinez. 
The  Northwest  America  sailed  eight  days  afterwards  on  a 
trading  voyage,  and  the  Iphigenia  was  a  short  time  subse- 
quently seized  by  Martinez,  on  the  ground  that  her  instruc- 
tions were  hostile  to  Spain.  She  was,  however,  soon 
restored,  and  continued  to  trade  under  Portuguese  colors, — 
a  fact  which  shows  conclusively  that  no  claim  can  justly  be 
set  up  by  Great  Britain  on  the  basis  of  the  voyage  of 
Meares  to  Nootka,  and  his  temporary  establishment  there. 


14,  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

The  Northwest  America  was  also  seized,  for  reasons  not 
directly  connected  with  any  question  of  sovereignty,  and 
was  employed  for  nearly  two  years  in  the  Spanish  service. 

In  the  month  of  June,  1789,  two  vessels,  the  Argo- 
naut and  Princess  Royal,  sailing  under  British  colors,  ar- 
rived at  Nootka,  and  were  seized  by  Martinez.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  enter  into  the  details  of  this  transaction.  It  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  it  led  to  an  animated  discussion  between 
the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  in  respect 
to  their  rishts  in  the  Pacific  and  the  western  coast  of 
America,  which,  for  several  months,  threatened  to  produce 
a  war  between  the  two  countries,  but  which  was  finally 
terminated  in  October,  1790,  by  the  Treaty  of  the  Escurial, 
or  the  Nootka  Sound  Convention,  as  it  is  more  frequently 
denominated  with  us.  Before  the  negotiations  were  con- 
cluded, both  vessels  were  voluntarily  released  by  the  Span- 
ish authorities  in  Mexico. 

As  the  Nootka  Sound  Convention  constitutes  an  essential 
ingredient  in  the  claim  of  Great  Britain,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  advert  to  such  of  its  provisions  as  are  made  the 
foundation  of  her  title  to  the  qualified  exercise  of  sover- 
eignty which  she  asserts  over  the  northwest  coast  of  Amer- 
ica, and  to  consider  them  in  connection  with  the  circum- 
stances under  which  they  w^ere  framed.  The  articles  which 
relate  particularly  to  the  question  under  discussion  are  the 
1st,  3d,  5th,  and  6th. 

The  first  article  provides  that  — 

"  The  buildings  and  tracts  of  land  situated  on  the  northwest  coast 
of  the  continent  of  North  America,  or  on  the  islands  adjacent  to  that 
continent,  of  which  the  subjects  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  were  dis- 
possessed about  the  month  of  April,  1789,  by  a  Spanish  officer,  shall  be 
restored  to  the  said  British  subjects." 

The  third  article  provides,  that  — 

"  In  order  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  friendship,  and  to  preserve  in 
future  a  perfect  harmony  and  good  understanding  between  the  two 
contracting  parties,  it  is  agreed  that  their  respective  subjects  shall 
not  be  disturbed  or  molested,  either  in  navigating  or  carrying  on  their 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.^  15 

fisheries  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  or  in  the  South  Seas,  or  in  landing  on 
the  coasts  of  those  seas  in  places  not  already  occupied,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  on  their  commerce  with  the  natives  of  the  country, 
or  of  making  settlements  there ;  the  whole,  subject,  nevertheless,  to 
the  restrictions  specified  in  the  three  following  articles." 

The  fifth  article  provides  that  — 

"  As  well  in  the  places  which  are  to  be  restored  to  the  British 
subjects  by  virtue  of  the  first  article,  as  in  all  other  parts  of  the  north- 
western coast  of  America,  or  of  the  islands  adjacent,  situate  to  the 
north  of  the  parts  of  the  said  coast  already  occupied  by  Spain,  where- 
ever  the  subjects  of  either  of  the  two  Powers  shall  have  made  settle- 
ments since  the  month  of  April,  1789,  or  shall  hereafter  make  any, 
the  subjects  of  the  other  shall  have  free  access,  and  shall  carry  on 
their  trade  without  any  disturbance  or  molestation." 

The  sixth  article  relates  to  the  coast  of  South  Amer- 
ica ;  but  it  has  an  importance  in  containing  a  definition  of 
the  erections  which  may  be  made,  confining  them  to  such 
as  may  serve  the  purposes  of  fishing ;  and  the  provisions 
of  the  third  article  are  expressly  declared  to  be  subject  to 
the  restrictions  in  "  the  three  following  articles,"  one  of 
which  is  the  sixth.^ 

1  On  the  1st  of  March,  1825,  Colonel  by  Spain  was  of  no  consequence,)  and 
Benton  made  an  able  speech  in  the  to  what  extent  were  they  now  secured 
Senate  of  the  United  States  in  favor  of  to  us  1  We  possessed  and  exercised 
the  occupation  of  the  Oregon  (Colura-  the  free  navigation  of  the  Pacific  Ocean 
bia)  River.  In  this  speech  he  examined  without  restraint  or  limitation.  We 
the  Treaty  of  the  Escurial,  (the  Nootka  possessed  and  exercised  the  right  of 
Sound  Convention,)  and  insisted  that  carrying  on  fisheries  in  the  South  Seas 
it  was  proved  by  its  terms  to  be  "a  equally  unlimited."  "This  estate  we 
treaty  of  concession,  and  not  of  acqui-  had,  and  were  daily  improving ;  it  was 
sition  of  rights  on  the  part  of  Great  not  to  be  disgraced  by  the  name  of  an 
Britain  " ;  and  "  that  the  permission  to  acquisition.  The  admission  of  part  of 
land  and  to  make  settlements,  so  far  these  rights  was  all  we  had  obtained, 
from  contemplating  an  acquisition  of  Our  right  before  was  to  settle  in  any 
territory,  was  limited  by  subsequent  part  of  the  south  or  northwest  coast  of 
restrictions  to  the  erection  of  temporary  America  not  fortified  against  us  by  pre- 
huts  for  the  personal  accommodation  of  vious  occupancy ;  and  we  were  now  re- 
fishermen  and  traders  only."  These  stricted  to  settle  in  certain  places  only, 
positions  were  enforced  in  his  argu-  and  under  certain  restrictions.  This 
ment  by  a  reference  to  the  assertions  was  an  important  concession  on  our 
of  Mr.  Fox,  and  the  admissions  of  Mr.  part.  Our  rights  of  fishing  extended 
Pitt,  when  the  Nootka  Sound  contro-  to  the  whole  ocean ;  and  now  it  was 
versy  was  under  discussion  in  the  Brit-  limited  and  to  be  carried  on  within 
ish  Parliament.  The  following  are  certain  distances  of  the  Spanish  settle- 
some  of  the  passages  to  which  he  re-  ments.  Our  right  of  making  settle- 
ferred :  —  ments   was   not,  as   now,   a  right  to 

"  Mr.  Fox   said  :   What,  then,  was  build  huts,  but  to  plant  colonies  if  we 

the  extent  of  our  rights  before  the  con-  thought  proper.       Surely  these  were 

vention,  (whether  admitted  or  denied  not  acquisitions,  or  rather  conquests, 


15  SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 

I  now  proceed  to  state  certain  facts  in  respect  to  this  con- 
vention, and  to  draw  from  them  conclusions  at  which  I  have 
arrived  with  some  diffidence.  The  facts  I  shall  endeavor 
to  present  with  a  rigid  regard  to  accuracy.  If  my  conclu- 
sions are  erroneous,  the  better  judgment  of  the  Senate  will 
correct  them ;  and  I  shall  have  the  consolation  of  reflecting 
that  my  errors  —  if  they  shall  prove  such  —  have  led  to 
the  discovery  of  truth,  which  I  am  sure  is  the  great  object 
of  every  senator  on  this  floor. 

The  first  article  was  practically  inoperative,  from  a  total 
misapprehension  of  the  facts  which  it  supposed.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  subjects  of  his  Britannic  Majesty  had 
been  dispossessed  of  buildings  or  tracts  of  lands  in  April, 
1789,  or  at  any  other  time,  by  a  Spanish  officer.  In  the 
message  of  the  British  King  to  Parhament,  and  in  the 
earnest  discussions  between  the  two  countries  in  respect 
to  the  seizure  of  the  British  ships,  I  find  no  mention  of 
such  dispossession.  When  Vancouver  was  sent  out,  in 
179^5  to  receive  possession  of  the  buildings,  &c.  to  be  re- 
stored, none  could  be  found  excepting  those  erected  by  the 
Spaniards.  No  building  occupied  by  British  subjects  re- 
mained at  Nootka  in  17^9,  when  Martinez  arrived  there; 
and  it  was  denied  by  the  Indians  that  any  tracts  of  land 

as  they  must  be  considered,  if  we  were  accuracy  of  this  construction  of  the 
to  judge  by  the  triumphant  language  treaty  as  to  settlements  and  erections, 
respecting  them,  but  great  and  im-  But  he  maintained  "  that,  though  what 
portant  concessions."  "By  the  third  this  country  (Great  Britain)  had  gained 
article  we  are  authorized  to  navigate  consisted  not  of  new  rights,  it  certainly 
the  Pacific  Ocean  and  South  Seas,  un-  did  of  new  advantages.  We  had  be- 
molested,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  fore  a  right  to  the  southern  whale-fish- 
on  our  fisheries,  and  to  land  on  the  ing,  and  a  right  to  navigate  and  carry 
unsettled  coasts  for  the  purpose  of  trad-  on  fisheries  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  to 
ing  with  the  natives ;  but  after  this  trade  on  the  coast  of  any  part  of  North- 
pompous  recognition  of  right  to  navi-  west  America ;  but  that  right  had  not 
gation,  fishing,  and  commerce,  comes  only  not  been  acknowledged,  but  dis- 
another  article,  the  sixtli,  which  takes  puted  and  resisted ;  whereas  by  the 
away  the  right  of  landing,  and  erect-  convention  it  was  secured  to  us,  —  a 
ing  even  temporary  huts,  for  any  pur-  circumstance  which,  though  no  new 
pose  but  tliat  of  carrying  on  the  fish-  right,  was  a  new  advantage."  —  76.  p. 
ery,  and  amounts  to  a  complete  dere-  1002. 

liction  of  all  right  to  settle  in  any  way        This  subject  has  recently  been  fur- 

for  the  purpose  of  commerce  with  the  ther  illustrated  in  a  close  and  well-rea- 

natives."  —  British  Parliamentary  His-  soned  argument  by  Mr.  Owen,  of  Indi- 

torj^,  Vol.  XXVIII.  p.  990.  ana,  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives. 
Mr.  Pitt,  in  reply,  did  not  deny  the 


THE   OREGON  QUESTION.  J^V 

had  been  ceded  to  British  subjects.  In  fact,  there  were  no 
traces  of  the  occupancy  which  the  article  suppose(J.  The 
only  pretence  of  a  cession  of  territory  of  which  there  was 
any  evidence,  was  the  right  acquired  by  Meares,  while 
acting-  in  the  name  of  a  Portuguese  citizen,  and  sailing 
under  the  flag  of  Portugal,  to  occupy  temporarily  a  very 
small  lot,  which  he  himself  admits  he  had  agreed  to  restore 
when  he  should  leave  the  coast. 

After  a  long  controversy  on  this  subject  between  Van- 
couver and  Quadra,  the  Spanish  commander  at  Nootka, 
the  former  departed  without  receiving  any  restitution  of 
buildings  or  lands,  and  the  subject  was  referred  to  their 
respective  goyernments.  In  1796,  Captain  Broughton 
arrived  at  Nootka,  and  found  the  place  unoccupied.^  He 
nowhere  states  that  he  was  sent  out  with  instructions  to 
adjust  the  difficulty.  But  he  says  he  was  informed,  by 
letters  left  with  Maquinna,  the  Indian  king,  that  "  the 
Spaniards  had  delivered  up  the  port  of  Nootka,  &c.  to 
Lieutenant  Pierce,  of  the  marines,  agreeably  to  the  mode 
of  restitution  settled  between  the  two  courts."  But  there 
is  no  proof  of  such  restitution.  The  only  authority  relied 
on  to  show  such  a  restitution,  is  one  recently  produced  by 
the  "  London  Times."  I  allude  to  De  Koch,  Vol.  I.  page 
1£6.     He  says: 

"The  execution  of  the  convention  of  the  28th  October,  1790,  [the 
Nootka  Convention,]  experienced  some  difficulties  which  delayed  it  till 
1795.  They  were  terminated  the  23d  of  March  of  that  year,  on  the 
spot  itself,  by  the  Spanish  Brigadier  Alava  and  the  English  Lieuten- 
ant Poara,  who  exchanged  declarations  in  the  bay  of  Nootka ;  after 
which  the  Spanish  fort  was  destroyed,  the  Spaniards  embarked,  and 
the  English  flag  was  planted  there  in  sign  of  possession."  ^ 

-  See  his  Voyage  of  Discovery  to  the  Mars    de    cette   annee,   sur   les    lieux 

North  Pacific  Ocean,  p.  50.  memes,  par  le  Brigadier  Espagnol  Ala- 

^  See  Histoire  Abr^yee  des  Traii€s  de  va,  et  le  Lieutenant  Anglois  Poara,  qui 

Paix,  &c.,  par  M.  de  Koch,  continue,  echangerent  des  declarations  dans  le 

&c.,  par  F.  Schoell.  golfe  de  Nootka  meme;   apres  que  le 

"  L'exe'cution  de  la  convention  du  28  fort  Espagnol  fut  rase',  les  Espagnols 

Octobre,  1790,  eprouva,  au  reste,  des  s'embarquerent,  et  le  pavilion  Anglais 

difficulte's  qui  la  retarderent  jusqu'en  y  fut  plante  en  signe  de  possession.'* 
1795.      EUes  furent  terminees  le  23 


J  3  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

De  Koch  has  the  reputation  of  being  accurate ;  but  there 
is  certainly  one  error  in  his  statement.  There  was  no  such 
name  as  Poara  in  the  British  Registers  of  that  year.  He 
doubtless  meant  Pierce. 

In  opposition  to  this  testimony  of  a  foreign  writer,  we 
have  the  assertion,  twice  repeated,  of  the  British  historian, 
Belsham,  that  the  Spanish  flag  at  Nootka  was  never  struck, 
and  that  the  place  was  virtually  relinquished  by  Great 
Britain.^  If  any  restitution  was  ever  made,  the  evidence 
must  be  in  the  possession  of  Great  Britain.  Senor  Quadra, 
in  179^,  offered  to  give  Vancouver  possession,  reserving 
the  rights  of  sovereignty  which  Spain  possessed.  There 
may  have  been  a  restitution  with  such  reservation ;  but  if 
there  is  any  evidence  of  a  restitution,  why  has  it  not  been 
produced  by  the  British  negotiators,  or  at  least  referred  to '? 
Where  are  the  declarations  mentioned  by  De  Koch  as  hav- 
ing been  exchanged  1  Why,  I  repeat,  has  the  evidence  not 
been  produced]  Probably  because,  if  there  is  any  such 
evidence,  it  must  prove  a  conditional  and  not  an  absolute 
surrender,  —  such  a  surrender  as  she  is  unwilling  to  show, 
—  a  surrender  reserving  to  Spain  her  rights  of  sovereignty. 
If  there  was  a  restitution,  and  she  possesses  the  evidence  of 
it,  she  probably  secretes  it,  as  she  secreted  the  map  of  the 
Northeastern  Territory  with  the  red  line,  because  it  would 
have  been  a  witness  against  her.     When  Vancouver  went 

1  "It  is  certain,  nevertheless,  from  and  reparation,  it  is  well  ascertained, 

the  most  authentic  subsequent  infor-  first,  that  the   settlement  in  question 

mation,  that  the  Spanish  flag  fljring  at  never  was  restored  by  Spain,  nor  the 

the  fort  and  settlement  of  Nootka  was  Spanish  flag  at  Nootka  ever  struck ; 

never  struck,  and  that  the  whole  terri-  and,  secondly,   that  no  settlement  has 

tory  has  been  virtually  relinquished  by  even  been  subsequently  attempted  by 

Great  Britain,  —  a  measure,   however  England  on  the  Californian  coast.    The 

politically  expedient,  which  involves  m  claim  of  right  set  up  by  the  Court  of 

it  a  severe  reflection  upon  the  minister  London,  it  is  therefore  plain,  has  been 

who  could  permit  so  insidious  an  en-  virtually   abandoned,   notwithstanding 

croachment  upon  the  ancient  and  ac-  the  menacing  tone  in  which  the  nego- 

knowledged  rights   of  the   Crown  of  tiation  was  conducted  by  the  British 

Spain." — Belsham' s  History    of  Great  administration,  who  cannot  escape  some 

Britain,  Vol.  VIII.  pp.  337,  338.  censure  for  encouraging  those   vexa- 

"But  though  England,  at  the  ex-  tious  encroachments  on  the  territorial 

pense  of  three  millions,  extorted  from  rights  of  Spain."  —  lb.  Appendix,  pp 

the  Spaniards  a  promise  of  restoration  40,  41. 


I 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  I9 

out  in  179^5  he  carried  an  order  from  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment to  the  commander  at  the  port  of  St.  Lawrence 
(Nootka)  to  restore  the  buildings  and  districts  or  parcels 
of  land  which  were  "  occupied "  by  the  subjects  of  Great 
Britain  at  Nootka  and  Port  Cox,  and  of  "  which  the  Eng- 
lish subjects  were  dispossessed."  Quadra  refused  to  exe- 
cute it.  No  occupation  —  no  dispossession  was  proved. 
The  treaty  did  not  name  Nootka  nor  Port  Cox.  Quadra 
considered,  doubtless,  the  occupation  and  dispossession  as 
facts  to  be  proved.  Though  the  treaty  was  absolute  in  its 
terms,  its  execution  depended  on  a  contingency  assumed  to 
have  happened,  —  a  contingency  to  be  shown.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  such  proof,  we  have  a  right  to  insist  on  the 
evidence  of  a  restitution,  full,  formal,  unconditional,  absolute. 
Broughton,  in  179^,  says  the  restitution  was  made  agree- 
ably to  the  mode  "  settled  between  the  two  courts."  This 
was  a  mode  settled  on  the  reference  of  the  subject  to  the 
two  governments  after  the  refusal  of  Quadra  to  surrender 
Nootka  to  Vancouver.  Vancouver,  in  his  "Journal,"  Vol. 
VI.  page  118,  says  that  on  the  12th  September,  1794*,  Seiior 
Alava  told  him  at  Monterey  that  the  matter  had  been  ad- 
justed by  their  respective  courts  "  nearly  on  the  terms " 
which  he  (Vancouver)  had  repeatedly  offered  to  Quadra. 
Even  this  statement,  coming  from  Vancouver,  shows  that 
there  was  a  new  agreement  between  the  courts.  What 
was  the  agreement  \  We  have  a  right  to  call  for  its  pro- 
duction. 

Such  was  the  practical  execution  of  the  first  article  of 
the  Nootka  Sound  Convention.  One  fact  is  undeniable. 
Great  Britain  never  occupied  Nootka.  From  1796  to  the 
present  day,  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  reoccupy  it  by 
civilized  men.  Captain  Belcher,  a  British  naval  officer, 
visited  the  place  in  1 887?  while  making  a  voyage  round  the 
world.     In  his  "Narrative,"  page  118,  Vol.  I.,  he  says:  — 

"  No  vestige  remains  of  the  settlement  noticed  by  Vancouver,  nor 
could  I  discern  on  the  site  of  the  Spanish  battery  the  slightest  trace  of 


20  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

stones  employed  for  building.  The  chiefs  pointed  out  where  their 
houses  stood,  and  where  the  potatoes  grew,  but  not  a  trace  remains  of 
a  European." 

The  third  article,  besides  stipulating  for  an  unmolested 
enjoyment  of  the  right  of  navigating  and  fishing  in  the 
Pacific  and  South  Seas,  and  landing  on  the  coast,  conceded 
in  express  terms  to  the  subjects  of  both  nations  the  right 
to  form  settlements  in  places  not  already  occupied ;  but 
this  right  was  subject  to  the  restrictions  of  the  three  fol- 
lowing articles,  one  of  which  was  to  limit  its  exercise  to 
the  parts  of  the  coast,  or  the  islands  adjacent,  north  of  the 
parts  already  occupied  by  Spain.  It  had,  by  the  terms  of 
the  compact,  no  application  whatever  to  parts  of  the  coast 
of  North  America  south  of  the  places  occupied  by  Spain 
at  the  time  the  treaty  was  made.  The  important  question 
arises,  what  was  the  most  northern  point  occupied  by  Spain 
in  1790?  This  became  a  matter  of  disagreement  between 
the  Spanish  and  British  authorities  at  a  very  early  day  after 
the  Nootka  Sound  Convention  was  formed.  Vancouver 
claimed  not  only  the  whole  of  Nootka  Sound,  but  also  Port 
Cox,  south  of  it ;  and  he  insisted,  to  use  his  own  phrase- 
ology, that  "  the  northernmost  spot  on  the  Pacific  coast  of 
America,  occupied  by  the  Spaniards  previous  to  the  month 
of  May,  1789,  was  the  Presidio  of  San  Francisco,  in  lati- 
tude 37°  48'."  Now,  it  will  be  observed  that  an  attempt 
was  made  to  give  to  the  Nootka  Sound  Convention  a  con- 
struction wholly  unwarranted  by  its  terms.  Vancouver 
endeavored  to  fix  the  month  of  April,  1789,  as  the  time 
when  the  question  of  the  most  northern  occupation  of 
Spain  was  to  be  settled.  The  language  of  the  con- 
vention, in  respect  to  the  right  of  forming  settlements, 
is,  "north  of  the  parts  of  the  said  coast  already  occupiec 
by  Spain  " ;  fixing  the  time,  according  to  every  just  rult 
of  construction,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  the  S8th  of 
October,  1790.  This  construction  is  strengthened  by  th( 
fact,  that  a  subsequent  article  concedes  the  right  of  forming 


THE   OREGON  QUESTION.  £1 

temporary  establishments  on  the  coast  of  South  America, 
south  of  parts  "  already  occupied "  by  Spain,  and  refer- 
ring indisputably  to  the  date  of  the  treaty.  The  words 
"  already  occupied  "  are  the  same  in  both  articles,  and  they 
must  be  considered  as  referring  to  the  same  period  of 
time. 

The  question  then  recurs,  what  was  the  most  northerly 
point  occupied  by  Spain  in  October,  1790,  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  treaty  1 

Martinez,  as  has  been  seen,  took  possession  of  Nootka 
Sound  on  the  6th  of  May,  1789?  and  immediately  landed 
materials  and  cannon  for  building  and  arming  a  fort  on  a 
small  island  at  the  entrance  of  Friendly  Cove.  In  Novem- 
ber he  returned  to  St..  Bias,  and,  in  the  spring  of  1790, 
Captain  Elisa  took  his  place.  A  permanent  establishment 
was  formed,  vessels  were  sent  out  on  exploring  expeditions, 
and,  during  the  negotiations  between  Vancouver  and  Quadra 
in  179^5  the  Spaniards  were  in  possession  of  houses  and 
cultivated  lands.  Vancouver  again  found  them  in  posses- 
sion in  1793,  under  Seiior  Fidalgo,  and  in  1794^,  under 
Senor  Saavadra,  and  the  post  was  maintained  without  in- 
terruption until  iJ95}  By  turning  to  page  886,  Vol.  11., 
of  "  Vancouver's  Journal,"  a  view  of  the  Spanish  estab- 
lishment at  Friendly  Cove,  on  Nootka  Sound,  will  be  seen, 
from  a  sketch  taken  on  the  spot  by  one  of  Vancouver's 
party,  in  September  or  October,  179^  ;  and  it  exhibits  ten 

1  Vancouver  arrived  at  Nootka  Sound        Vancouver  arrived  at  Nootka  Sound 

on  the  20th  May,  1793,  and  found  the  on  the  2d  September,  1794,  and  found 

Spaniards    in    possession.     He    says :  Brigadier-General  Alava  in  command. 

"An  officer  was  im.mediately  despatched  He  left  without  resuming  the  negotia- 

on  shore  to  acquaint  Seiior  Fidalgo  of  tion  which  he  had  commenced  with 

our  arrival,  and  that  I  would  salute  the  Quadra,  in  1792.     On  the  12th  Novem- 

fort  if  he  would  make  an  equal  return;  ber,  1794,  he  was  informed  by  General 

this  was  accordingly  done  with  eleven  Alava,  at  Monterey,  where  they  met, 

guns." — Vancouver's  Journal,  Vol.  III.  that  instructions  had  been  sent  to  adjust 

P-  422.  the   matter  in  an  amicable  way,  and 

Vancouver  arrived  at  Nootka  Sound  nearly  on  the  terms  which  he  (Van- 
on  the  5th  of  October,  1793,  and,  to  use  couver)  had  repeatedly  offered  to  Senor 
his  own  words,  "  the  usual  ceremonies  Quadra  in  September,  1792.  But  of 
of  salutes,  and  other  formalities,  hav-  this,  as  has  been  seen,  there  is  no  satis- 
ing  passed,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Paget,  factory  evidence.  —  See  Vol.  VI.  p. 
I  waited  on  Senor  Saavadra,  the  com-  118. 
mander  of  the  post."— Vol.  IV.  p.  289. 


^g  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

roofed  buildings,  with  several  enclosures  of  cultivated  land. 
It  also  exhibits,  totally  distinct  from  these  lands  and  build- 
ings, a  cove  adjoining,  and  a  reference  to  it,  stating  that 
it  includes  "the  territories  which,  in  September,  179^, 
were  offered  by  Spain  to  be  ceded  to  Great  Britain."  This 
was  the  site  of  the  hut  occupied  by  Meares,  and  the  Spanish 
commander  refused  to  make  a  formal  and  absolute  surrender 
to  Great  Britain  of  any  other  land. 

Thus  it  is  established,  by  proof  not  to  be  impeached, 
that  the  Spaniards  were  in  the  occupation  of  a  post  at 
Nootka  Sound  in  1790,  when  the  convention  was  negotiated 
and  concluded ;  and  I  submit,  therefore,  whether  this  must 
not  be  regarded  as  the  southern  Hmit  of  the  region  within 
which  the  right  of  forming  settlements,  recognized  or  con- 
ceded by  the  convention,  was  to  be  exercised.  This  point 
was  strenuously  and  perseveringly  insisted  on  by  Quadra 
in  his  negotiation  with  Vancouver,  and  with  obvious  justice. 
To  use  Vancouver's  own  language,  page  84^2,  Vol.  II.,  of 
his  "  Journal,"  Quadra  observed  that  "  Nootka  ought  to 
be  the  last  or  most  northwardly  Spanish  settlement;  that 
there  the  dividing  line  should  be  fixed,  and  that  from  thence 
to  the  northward  should  be  free  for  entrance,  use,  and  com- 
merce to  both  parties,  conformably  with  the  fifth  article  of 
the  convention ;  that  establishments  should  not  be  formed 
without  permission  of  the  respective  courts ;  and  that  the 
English  should  not  pass  to  the  south  of  Fuca."  Such  was 
Quadra's  construction  of  the  treaty;  and  he  uniformly  re- 
fused to  make  any  formal  surrender  of  territory  or  buildings, 
excepting  the  small  cove  referred  to.  Nootka  Sound  is 
midway  between  the  49th  and  50th  parallels  of  latitude; 
and  south  of  this  point,  if  Quadra's  position  was  well  taken, 
Great  Britain  could  claim  no  right  by  virtue  of  the  con- 
vention, though  it  were  still  in  force. 

That  Great  Britain  would  have  had  the  right,  under  the 
convention,  at  any  time  during  its  continuance,  to  form  a 
temporary  establishment  on  any  part  of  the  northwest  coast, 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  28 

north  of  the  Spanish  post  at  Nootka,  will  not  be  disputed ; 
though  it  would  have  been  subject  to  the  right  of  free  access 
and  trade  reserved  to  the  subjects  of  Spain.  But  she  neg- 
lected to  assert  her  right.  She  formed  no  settlements  in 
pursuance  of  the  convention ;  and,  in  179^,  Spain,  by  de- 
claring war  against  her,  put  an  end  to  the  treaty,  agreeably 
to  the  acknowledged  principle  of  international  law,  that  the 
permanence  of  treaty  stipulations  can  only  be  secured  by  ex- 
press agreement,  and  that,  without  such  an  agreement,  they 
cease  to  be  binding  on  the  occurrence  of  hostilities  between 
the  contracting  parties,  unless  there  is  soniething  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  questions  settled  which  is,  of  necessity,  perma- 
nent and  final.  Having  failed,  then,  to  make  any  settle- 
ment on  the  coast  from  1790  to  1796,  all  rights  conceded 
by  the  convention  ceased  with  the  declaration  of  war,  by 
which  it  was  terminated.  From  that  time  forth.  Great 
Britain  stood  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  Spain  as 
though  the  convention  had  never  been  formed ;  and,  in  order 
to  establish  any  claim  she  may  advance  to  territorial  rights 
on  the  northwest  coast,  she  must  resort  to  those  general 
rules  founded  upon  discovery  and  occupation  which  were 
briefly  adverted  to  at  the  commencement  of  my  remarks. 

I  will  not  discuss  the  question  whether  the  Treaty  of 
the  Escurial  was  revived  by  the  Treaty  of  Madrid,  in  1814. 
I  consider  it  put  at  rest  by  the  able  argument  of  the  Amer- 
ican negotiator,  Mr.  Buchanan. 

Let  me  now  revert  to  the  progress  of  discovery  and 
exploration,  which  I  was  briefly  sketching,  and  which  was 
interrupted  by  the  events  of  the  Nootka  Sound  contro- 
versy. 

In  1789,  the  American  sloop  Washington,  commanded 
by  Captain  Gray,  who  afterwards  discovered  the  Columbia 
River,  entered  and  sailed  fifty  miles  in  the  Strait  of  Juan 
de  Fuca.  Meares,  in  his  narrative,  describes  a  voyage  by 
the  Washington  entirely  through  the  strait  to  the  north  of 
the  islands  of  Quadra  and  Vancouver,  and  thence  into  the 


24,  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

Pacific.  If  such  a  voyage  was  ever  made,  it  must  liave 
been  under  Captain  Kendrick,  who  was,  at  another  period, 
in  the  command  of  that  vessel ;  for  Gray,  when  he  met 
Vancouver  in  179^?  said  it  was  not  made  by  himself.  But, 
be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  the  Washington  was 
the  first  vessel  which  penetrated  the  strait  beyond  its  mouth 
after  its  discovery  by  De  Fuca.  A  subsequent  examination 
was  made  in  1790,  as  high  as  50°,  by  order  of  the  Spanish 
commander  at  Nootka  Sound ;  so  that  its  shores  were  well 
known  in  their  general  outlines  before  the  examinations 
made  by  Vancouver  two  years  afterwards. 

In  179^5  Vancouver  arrived  on  the  northwest  coast,  with 
instructions  to  examine  and  survey  the  whole  shore  of  the 
Pacific  from  the  83th  to  the  60th  parallel  of  latitude,  and 
particularly  to  examine  "  the  supposed  Strait  of  Juan  de 
Fuca,"  through  which  the  sloop  Washington  is  reported  to 
have  passed  in  1789,  and  to  have  come  out  again  to  the 
northward  of  Nootka."  He  passed  the  mouth  of  the  Co- 
lumbia River,  which  he  considered  as  an  opening  undeserv- 
ing of  "  more  attention,"  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that, 
between  the  40th  and  48th  parallels  of  latitude,  the  rivers 
which  had  been  described  "  were  reduced  "  (I  use  his  own 
words)  "  to  brooks  insufficient  for  our  vessels  to  navigate, 
or  to  bays  inapplicable,  as  harbors,  for  refitting."  On  the 
£9th  of  April,  he  met  Captain  Gray,  in  the  ship  Columbia, 
from  Boston,  and  was  informed  by  him  that  he  had  "  been 
off  the  mouth  of  a  river  in  the  latitude  of  46°  10',  where 
the  outset  or  reflux  was  so  great  as  to  prevent  his  enter- 
ing for  nine  days."  And  Vancouver  adds:  '?This  was 
probably  the  opening  passed  by  us  on  the  forenoon  of  the 
£7th,  and  was  apparently  inaccessible,  not  from  the  current, 
but  from  the  breakers  that  extended  across  it."  (Vol.  II. 
p.  43.)  Notw^ithstanding  this  communication  by  Gray,  Van-  S 
couver,  relying  on  his  own  examinations,  still  remained  of  I 
the  opinion  (and  he  so  records  it)  that,  "if  any  inlet  or 
river  should  be  found,  it  must  be  a  very  intricate  one,  and 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION. 


25 


inaccessible  to  vessels  of  our  burden,  owing  to  the  reefs, 
broken  water,"  &c. ;  and  he  concludes  that  he  was  "  thor- 
oughly convinced  "  that  he  could  "  not  possibly  have  passed 
any  safe  navigable  opening,  harbor,  or  place  of  security  for 
shipping  on  this  coast,  from  Cape  Mendocino  to  the  prom- 
ontory of  Classet,"  the  entrance  of  the  Strait  of  Fuca. — 
(Vol.  II.  pp.  58,  59.)^ 


1  The  following  extracts  from  Van- 
couver's Voyage  illustrate  more  fully  the 
positions  assumed  in  the  text :  — 

"  On  the  south  side  of  this  promon- 
tory was  the  appearance  of  an  inlet  or 
small  river,  the  land  behind  not  indi- 
cating it  to  be  of  any  great  extent ;  nor 
did  it  seem  accessible  for  vessels  of  our 
burden,  as  the  breakers  extended  from 
the  above  point  two  or  three  miles  into 
the  ocean,  until  they  joined  those  on 
the  beach  nearly  four  leagues  further 
south." — Vancouver's  Journal,  Vol.  III. 
p.  34. 

This  he  states  to  be  in  46°  19'. 

"  The  sea  had  now  changed  from  its 
natural  to  river-colored  water ;  the  prob- 
able consequence  of  some  streams  fall- 
ing into  the  bay,  or  into  the  ocean  to 
the  north  of  it,  through  the  low  land. 
Not  considering  tliis  opening  worthy  of 
more  attention,  I  continued  our  pur- 
suit," &c.  — 76. 

"  The  several  large  rivers  and  capa- 
cious inlets  that  have  been  described 
as  discharging  their  contents  into  the 
Pacific,  between  the  fortieth  and  forty- 
eighth  degrees  of  north  latitude,  were^ 
reduced  to  brooks  insuflScient  for  our 
vessels  to  navigate,  or  to  bays  inappli- 
cable, as  harbors,  for  refitting."  —  lb. 
p.  40. 

"He  [Captain  Gray]  likewise  in- 
formed them  of  his  having  been  off  the 
mouth  of  a  river  in  the  latitude  of  46° 
10',  where  the  outlet  or  reflux  was  so 
strong  as  to  prevent  his  entering  for 
nine  days.  This  was  probably  the 
opening  passed  by  us  on  the  forenoon 
of  the  27th,  and  was  apparently  inac- 
cessible, not  from  the  current,  but  from 
the  breakers  that  extended  across  it." — 
lb.  p.  43. 

"  The  thick,  rainy  weather  permitted 
us  to  see  little  of  the  country.  Yet 
we  were  enabled  to  ascertain  that  this 
coast,  like  that  which  we  have  hitherto 
explored  from  Cape  Mendocino,  was 
firm  and  compact,  without  any  opening 
into  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  as  stated, 
in  latitude  47°  45',  or  the  least  appear- 
4 


ance  of  a  safe  or  secure  harbor,  either 
in  that  latitude  or  from  it  to  Cape  Men- 
docino, notwithstanding  that,  in  that 
space,  geographers  have  thought  it 
expedient  to  furnish  many."— 76.  p. 
44. 

Vancouver  states  that  his  inquiries 
had  been  lately  employed  under  the 
most  favorable  circumstances  of  wind 
and  weather,  and  that  the  surf  had  con- 
stantly been  seen  from  the  masthead. 
He  then  adds  :  "  The  river  Mr.  Gray 
mentioned  should,  from  the  latitude  he 
assigned  to  it,  have  existence  in  the 
bay  south  of  Cape  Disappointment. 
This  we  passed  on  the  forenoon  of  the 
27th ;  and,  as  I  then  observed,  if  any 
inlet  or  river  should  be  found,  it  must 
be  a  very  intricate  one,  and  inaccessible 
to  vessels  of  our  burden,  owing  to  the 
reefs  and  broken  water  which  then  ap- 
peared in  its  neighborhood.  Mr.  Gray 
stated  that  he  had  been  several  days 
attempting  to  enter  it,  which  he  was 
unable  to  effect  in  consequence  of  a  very 
strong  outlet.  This  is  a  phenomenon 
difficult  to  account  for,  as,  in  most  cases, 
where  there  are  outlets  of  such  strength 
on  a  seacoast,  there  are  corresponding 
tides  setting  in.  Be  that,  however,  as 
it  may,  I  was  thoroughly  convinced,  as 
were  also  most  persons  of  observation 
on  board,  that  we  could  not  possibly 
have  passed  any  safe  navigable  open- 
ing, harbor,  or  place  of  security  for 
shipping  on  this  coast,  from  Mendocino 
to  the  promontory  of  Classet ;  nor  had 
we  any  reason  to  alter  our  opinions,  not- 
withstanding that  theoretical  geogra- 
phers have  thought  proper  to  assert,  in 
that  space,  the  existence  of  arms  of  the 
ocean  communicating  with  a  Mediter- 
ranean sea  and  extensive  rivers,  with 
safe  and  convenient  ports.  These  ideas, 
not  derived  from  any  source  of  substan- 
tial information,  have,  it  is  much  to  be 
feared,  been  adopted  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  giving  unlimited  credit  to  the 
traditions  and  exploits  of  ancient  for- 
eigners, and  to  undervalue  the  labori- 
ous and  enterprising  exertions  of  our 


2Q  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Only  eight  days  after  parting  with  Vancouver,  Gray 
discovered  Bulfinch's  Harbor,  between  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  and  the  Strait  of  Fuca,  and  remained  three  days 
in  it.  On  the  11th  May,  179^,  the  day  after  he  left  Bui- 
finch's  Harbor,  he  saw,  to  use  his  own  words,  "  the  entrance 
of  our  desired  port/'  and  in  a  few  hours  was  anchored  in 
"  a  large  river  of  fresh  water,"  as  he  terms  it,  to  which  he 
gave  the  name  of  the  Columbia.  He  remained  in  the  river 
nine  days,  and  sailed,  as  he  states,  more  than  twenty  miles 
up  the  channel  from  the  bar  at  its  entrance.  Thus  was 
verified  the  conjecture  of  Heceta,  who,  seventeen  years 
before,  saw  an  opening  in  the  coast,  which  on  the  Spanish 
maps  was  called  the  river  St.  Roc.  Meares  and  Vancouver 
had  asserted,  in  the  most  positive  manner,  their  conviction 
that  no  such  river  existed ;  yet,  when  the  fact  was  clearly 
ascertained  by  Captain  Gray,  who  had  given  copies  of  his 
charts  to  Quadra,  the  Spanish  commander  at  Nootka,  Van- 
couver, having  procured  copies  from  the  latter,  sent  Lieuten- 
ant Broughton  to  examine  the  river,  and  take  formal  pos- 
session of  it.  Broughton  not  only  performed  both  these 
services,  but,  for  the  purpose  of  earning  for  himself  the 
reputation  of  a  discoverer,  he  labored,  in  his  account  of  his 
expedition,  to  rob  Captain  Gray  of  the  merit  of  discovering 
the  river,  by  the  unworthy  device  of  drawing  a  distinction 
between  the  bay  in  which  it  debouches  and  the  upper  part 
of  the  stream.  Public  opinion  has  rejected  this  unmanly 
attempt;  and  Captain  Gray  is  admitted  by  all  fair-minded 
men  to  have  been  the  first  person  who  entered  the  river  and 
solved  the  doubt  which  had  long  prevailed  with .  regard  to 
its  existence,  while  Vancouver,  twelve  days  before  the  dis- 
covery, had  not  hesitated  to  deny,  on  the  strength  of  his  own 

own  countrymen  in  the  noble  science  80',  in  which  he  had  sailed  to  the  lati- 

of  discovery,"  —  76.  p.  59.  tude  of  56°,  without  discovering  its  ter- 

Captain  Gray,  it  appears,  had  also  mination."  —  lb.  p.  43. 

made  discoveries  as  high  as  the  north.  This  was  probably  what  is  now  known 

em  boundary  of  the  territory  in  dis-  as  the  Portland  Canal.     I  have  not  al- 

pute,  and  even  beyond  it.     Vancouver  luded  to  this  fact  in  the  text,  though  it 

says  :   "  He  had  also  entered  another  rests  on  Vancouver's  report  of  Gray's 

inlet  to  the  northward,  in  latitude  54°  statement. 


THE  OREGON   QUESTION.  ^ 

personal  examination,  made  "  under  the  most  favorable  cir- 
cumstances of  wind  and  weather,"  to  use  his  own  language, 
that  any  such  great  river  existed.  This  attempt  on  the  part 
of  Broughton  is  the  more  unmanly,  from  the  fact  that  he 
actually  entered  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  with  the  aid  pf 
Gray's  chart.  I  am  disposed  to  acquit  Vancouver,  in  a  great 
degree,  from  all  participation  in  the  odium  of  this  act.  The 
account  of  the  examination  of  the  Columbia  by  Broughton, 
contained  in  "  Vancouver's  Journal,"  though  in  the  language 
of  the  latter,  is,  in  fact,  a  report  made  by  Broughton,  the 
commander  of  the  party,  as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the 
"Journal,"  Vol.  III.  p.  85.  Vancouver  more  than  once 
recognizes  Gray  distinctly  as  the  discoverer  of  the  Columbia. 
At  p.  888,  Vol.  II.,  he  expresses  the  hope  that  he  may  be 
able,  in  his  route  to  the  southward,  to  "  reexamine  the  coast 
of  New  Albion,  and  particularly  a  river  and  a  harbor  discov- 
ered by  Mr.  Gray,  in  the  Columbia,  between  the  46th  and 
47th  degrees  of  north  latitude,  of  which  Senor  Quadra  had 
favored  me  with  a  sketch."  At  p.  893,  same  volume,  he 
says  he  directed  that  "  Mr.  Whidbey,  taking  one  of  the  Dis- 
covery's boats,  should  proceed  in  the  Daedalus  to  examine 
Gray's  Harbor,  said  to  be  situated  in  latitude  46°  58',  whilst 
the  Chatham  and  Discovery  explored  the  river  Mr.  Gray 
had  discovered  in  the  latitude  of  46°  10'." 

The  explorations  of  Vancouver,  though  they  resulted  in  a 
minute  and  critical  examination  of  the  shores  of  the  Strait 
of  Fuca,  led  to  the  discovery  of  no  new  territory ;  and  it  is 
a  singular  fact,  that,  while  this  naval  officer  of  Great  Britain, 
himself  an  accomplished  navigator,  furnished  with  all  the 
means  of  making  scientific  investigations,  was  pursuing  the 
examinations  Avhich  were  the  great  purpose  of  the  expedition. 
Captain  Gray,  in  a  trading  vessel,  and  in  the  prosecution  of 
commercial  objects  alone,  discovered  the  only  two  important 
openings,  the  Columbia  River  and  Bulfinch's  Harbor,  on  the 
northwest  coast,  from  the  40th  to  the  48th  parallel  of  lati- 
tude, where  Vancouver,  after  the  most  critical  survey,  had 
discovered  none. 


£8  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

It  is  indeed  an  extraordinary  circumstance  that  the  exist- 
ence of  all  the  great  inlets  in  the  coast,  to  which  Great 
Britain  now  lays  claim  on  the  ground  of  discovery,  was 
strenuously  denied  by  the  navigators  in  her  public  service, 
ui\til  those  inlets  were  discovered  and  made  known  by  others. 
We  have  seen  what  Vancouver  said  in  relation  to  the  coast 
between  the  40th  and  48th  parallels  of  latitude.  On  the 
SSd  of  March,  1778,  Captain  Cook  was  in  latitude  48°  15', 
inspecting  the  coast.  The  Promontory  of  Classet,  (or  Cape 
Flattery,  as  he  denominated  it,)  the  southern  cape  at  the 
entrance  of  the  Strait  of  Juan  de  Fuca,  was  in  full  view, 
and  but  a  few  miles  distant.  Hear  what  he  says  in  relation 
to  the  strait :  — 

"  It  is  in  this  very  latitude  where  we  now  were  that  geographers 
have  placed  the  pretended  Strait  of  Juan  de  Fuca.  But  we  saw 
nothing  like  it ;  nor  is  there  the  least  probability  that  any  such  thing 
ever  existed." — Cooh's  Third  Voyage,  Vol.  II.  p.  263. 

Now,  however,  Great  Britain  claims  the  whole  strait  and 
the  adjoining  country  by  Vancouver's  discovery,  though  he 
himself  admits  (as  we  shall  see)  that  the  Spaniards  had 
surveyed  and  mapped  a  portion  of  it  before  he  arrived  on 
the  northwest  coast. 

In  the  letter  of  the  British  plenipotentiary,  Mr.  Paken- 
ham,  of  the  SQth  of  July  last,  the  following  passage  will  be 
found  at  p.  67,  documents  accompanying  the  President's 
Message :  — 

"In  1792,  Vancouver,  who  had  been  sent  from  England  to  witness 
the  fulfilment  of  the  above-mentioned  engagement,  [the  restitution  of 
buildings,  &c.  at  Nootka,  which,  as  has  already  been  seen,  were  not  to 
be  found,]  and  to  effect  a  survey  of  the  northwest  coast,  departing 
from  Nootka  Sound  entered  the  Straits  of  Fuca ;  and  after  an  accurate 
survey  of  the  coasts  and  inlets  on  both  sides,  discovered  a  passage 
northwards  into  the  Pacific,  by  which  he  returned  to  Nootka,  having 
thus  circumnavigated  the  island  which  now  bears  his  name.  And  here 
we  have,  as  far  as  relates  to  Vancouver's  Island,  as  complete  a  case  of 
discovery,  exploration,  and  settlement,  as  can  well  be  presented,  giving 
to  Great  Britain,  in  any  arrangement  that  may  be  made  with  regard  to 
the  territory  in  dispute,  the  strongest  possible  claim  to  the  exclusive 
possession  of  the  island." 


THE   OREGON    QUESTION.  gg 

To  repel  this  assumption,  the  grounds  of  which  the 
disting-uished  British  plenipotentiary  appears  not  to  have 
sufficiently  investigated,  Mr.  Buchanan  briefly  referred  to 
previous  examinations  by  the  Spaniards.  I  now  proceed  to 
show,  by  Vancouver  himself,  that  the  assumption  is  entirely 
unsustained  by  the  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  let  me  correct  an  error  into  which  Mr. 
Pakenham  has  fallen  at  the  outset,  in  saying  that  Vancouver, 
"  departing  from  Nootka  Sound,"  surveyed  the  Straits  of 
Fuca,  circumnavigated  the  island  which  bears  his  name,  and 
then  returned  to  Nootka.  Sir,  Vancouver  had  never  seen 
Nootka  Sound  when  he  surveyed  the  Straits  of  Fuca.  He 
entered  the  straits  on  the  29th  of  April,  the  evening  of  the 
day  he  met  Captain  Gray,  and  proceeded  immediately  to 
survey  them,  as  may  be  seen  by  his  "Journal,"  Vol.  II.  pp. 
40,  52.  He  arrived  at  Nootka  for  the  first  time  on  the 
£8th  of  August,  four  months  afterwards  (p.  884^,  same  vol- 
ume). This  correction  is  only  important  as  repelling  the 
inference  which  might  have  been  drawn  from  the  fact,  if  it 
had  been  as  stated  by  Mr.  Pakenham,  that  Vancouver  had 
been  previously  established  at  Nootka,  and  had  departed 
from  it,  as  from  a  regular  station,  on  a  voyage  of  explora- 
tion to  the  Straits  of  Fuca. 

But  there  are  more  important  errors  to  be  corrected. 

While  Vancouver  was  surveying  the  Strait  of  Fuca,  and 
the  extensive  inland  waters  connected  with  it,  Galiano  and 
Valdes,  two  Spanish  officers  sent  out  from  Nootka  Sound, 
were  engaged  in  the  same  service.  The  two  parties  met  on 
the  J22d  of  June,  about  the  middle  of  the  strait,  near  Point 
Gray,  above  Frazer's  River,  and  proceeded  together  northerly, 
uniting  .  their  labors,  and  surveying  its  shores  to  a  point  near 
the  extremity  of  the  island  of  Quadra  and  Vancouver,  be- 
tween the  50th  and  the  51st  degrees  of  north  latitude,  where 
they  separated.  And  here  I  desire  to  call  the  special  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate  to  the  "  Journal "  of  Vancouver,  who 
states  that  Senor  Galiano,  who  spoke  a  little  English,  in- 


30  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

formed  him  "that  they  had  arrived  at  Nootka  on  the  11th  of 
April,  from  whence  they  had  sailed  on  the  5th  of  this  month," 
(June,)  "  in  order  to  complete  the  examination  of  this  inlet, 
which  had,  in  the  preceding  year,  been  partly  surveyed  by 
some  Spanish  officers,  whose  chart  they  produced."  Ob- 
serve, sir,  the  inlet  (/.  e.  the  Strait  of  Fuca),  about  latitude 
50°,  partly  surveyed  and  mapped  a  year  before  Vancouver 
came  on  the  coast.  Vancouver  then  continues  (Vol.  II. 
p.  £10) :  — 

"  I  cannot  avoid  acknowledging  that,  on  this  occasion,  I  experienced 
no  small  degree  of  mortification  in  finding  the  external  shores  of  the 
gulf  had  been  visited,  and  already  examined  a  few  miles  beyond  where 
my  researches  during  the  excursion  had  extended,  making  the  land  I 
had  been  in  doubt  about  an  island ;  continuing  nearly  in  the  same 
direction  about  four  leagues  further  than  had  been  seen  by  us,  and  by 
the  Spaniards  named  Favida  [Feveda]." 

By  turning  back  to  p.  S04<,  Vol.  XL,  it  will  appear 
that  Vancouver's  examination  terminated  at  50°  6'  north  lati- 
tude ;  so  that  the  Spaniards,  before  his  arrival,  by  his  own 
acknowledgment,  had  examined  the  Strait  of  Fuca  to  a  point 
north  of  that  parallel ;  and  by  turning  to  p.  249,  Vol.  II., 
it  will  be  seen  that,  on  parting  with  Senor  Galiano,  the  latter 
furnished  him  with  "  a  copy  of  his  survey  and  other  particu- 
lars relative  to  the  inlet  of  the  sea,  which  contained  also  that 
part  of  the  neighboring  coast  extending  northwestward  from 
the  Straits  of  De  Fuca,  beyond  Nootka,  to  the  latitude  of 
50°  3',  longitude  282°  48'." 

What,  then,  becomes  of  this  complete  "case  of  discovery, 
exploration,  and  settlement,"  in  respect  to  Quadra  and 
Vancouver's  Island,  and  the  Strait  of  Fuca  \  It  is  proved 
by  Vancouver  himself  that  the  Spaniards  had  partially  sur- 
veyed and  mapped  the  shores  of  the  strait  as  high  as  50°  a 
year  before  he  arrived  on  the  coast.  And  if  we  turn  to  his 
"  Journal,"  Vol.  II.  p.  839,  it  will  be  seen  that  Galiano  and 
Valdes  arrived  at  Nootka  on  the  1st  of  September,  three 
days  after  him,  by  a  "route  through  Queen  Charlotte's 
Sound,"  round  the  northern  point  of  the  island,  "to  the 


THE    OREGON   QUESTION.  31 

southward  of  that  which  we  had  navigated,"  and  of  course 
following  its  shores  more  closely  than  he.  "  The  strongest 
possible  claim  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  island,"  to 
use  Mr.  Pakenham's  language,  is  not,  therefore,  as  he 
asserts,  in  Great  Britain,  but,  as  shown  by  Vancouver 
himself,  it  was  in  Spain  then,  and  is  in  us  now. 

But,  sir,  I  have  a  word  to  say  in  relation  to  the  whole 
subject  of  Vancouver's  explorations. 

It  would  seem  that  the  Spaniards,  in  the  autumn  of  179^5 
had  become  distrustful  of  Vancouver's  objects  in  the  survey 
of  the  northwest  coast.  At  the  Bay  of  St.  Francisco,  al- 
though he  had  everywhere  before  been  treated  with  a  civility 
by  the  Spaniards  for  which  his  "  Journal "  abounded  in  expres- 
sions of  gratitude,  he  was  subjected  to  restrictions  which  he 
denominates  "  unexpected,  ungracious,  and  degrading."  On 
his  arrival  at  Monterey  on  the  1st  of  November,  the  Spanish 
commander,  Arrillaga,  declined  holding  any  verbal  communi- 
cation with  him,  but  addressed  to  him  questions  in  writing 
as  to  the  objects  of  his  voyage  ;  to  which  Vancouver 
promptly  replied  — 

"  That  the  voyage  in  which  we  were  engaged  was  for  the  general 
use  and  benefit  of  mankind,  and  that,  under  these  circumstances,  we 
ought  rather  to  be  considered  as  laboring  for  the  good  of  the  world  in 
general  than  for  the  advantage  of  any  particular  sovereign,  and  that  the 
Court  of  Spain  would  be  more  early  informed,  and  as  much  benefited 
by  my  labors,  as  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain." — Vol.  IV.  p.  309.^ 

1  The  correspondence  between  Van-  different  from  what  my  conversation 

couver  and  Senor  Arrillaga,  as  reported  with   Senor   Arrillaga  had  given  me 

by  the  former,  though  too  long  to  be  reason  to  expect  when  I  visited  him  at 

inserted  here,  is  well  worth  a  perusal,  the  Presidio,  I  was  reduced  to  the  ne- 

On  landing,  Vancouver  called  on  the  cessity  of  sending  him  the   next  day 

Spanish  commandant,  and  was  prepar-  (Saturday,  the  2d)  a  full  explanation 

ing  to  state  his  reasons  for  having  en-  of  the  objects  of  our  voyage,  and  of  the 

tered  the  ports  under  his  government,  motives  that  had  induced  me  to  enter 

when,  as  he  says,   "he  [Senor  Arril-  the  ports  under  his  jurisdiction."    The 

laga]  stopped  me  from  proceeding  fur-  substance  of  this  explanation  is  given 

ther,  and  begged  that  the  subject  might  in  the  extract  in  the  text,  denying  the 

be  referred  to  a  written   correspond-  intention  of  laboring  "  for  the  advau; 

ence,  by  which  mode  he  conceived  mat-  tage    of    any    particular    sovereign.'* 

ters  would  be  more  fully  explained."  And  it  was    so   satisfactory  that,   as 

In  the  afternoon  a  Spanish  officer  went  Vancouver  says,    "  On    Monday,   the 

on  board  Vancouver's  vessel,  and  de-  4th,  I  received  a  letter  from  Senor 

livered  him  two  letters  from  the  Span-  Arrillaga    in    reply  to    my  letter,  in 

ish  commandant.    "  The  tenor  of  these  which  he  was  pleased  to  compliment 

letters   [says  Vancouver]    being  very  me  upon  my  ingenuousness,"  &c. 


Q2  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Here  is  the  confession  of  Vancouver  himself,  that  there 
was  no  intention  of  interfering  with  the  territorial  rights  of 
Spain,  and  that  no  special  advantages  were  sought  for  by 
Great  Britain.  It  is  the  highest  evidence,  the  evidence  of 
contemporaneous  exposition,  against  the  claims  of  the  British 
plenipotentiary,  and  it  demolishes  the  whole  fabric  of  the 
British  title,  so  far  as  it  is  built  on  Vancouver's  explorations. 

While  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  desire  also  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Oregon 
question  has  been  discussed  in  the  British  Parliament  by 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of  both  branches 
of  that  body.  I  wish  to  do  so  for  the  purpose  of  correct- 
ing great  inaccuracies,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
how  imperfectly  the  subject  appears  to  be  understood  by 
those  who,  from  their  elevated  positions,  are  under  the 
strongest  moral  obligations  to  possess  themselves  of  the 
truth,  in  order  that  the  public  mind  of  Great  Britain  may 
not  be  misled  and  inflamed  on  their  high  authority. 

In  the  House  of  Lords,  on  the  4th  of  April  last,  imme- 
diately after  the  reception  of  the  President's  inaugural 
speech,  the  subject  was  brought  forward  by  the  Earl  oP 
Clarendon,  not  in  the  usual  form  of  a  call  on  her  Majesty's 
Ministers  for  information,  but  in  pursuance  of  a  notice 
which  he  had  given  on  the  preceding  day  of  his  design  to 
invite  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  question.  In  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  he  undertook  to  give  a  sketch  of  the 
claims  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  to  the  Terri- 
tory of  Oregon.  I  shall,  in  respect  to  the  former,  quote  his 
own  words  from  the  "  London  Times,"  a  source  to  which  we 
may  confidently  look  for  an  accurate  report  of  his  Lordship's 
remarks.  I  shall  confine  myself  strictly  to  the  question  of 
title  in  all  I  have  to  say  in  reference  to  these  debates,  avoid- 
ing carefully  all  allusion  to  the  oflfensive  language  with 
which  they  were  in  some  instances  connected :  — 

"  In  the  first  place,  my  Lords,  if  priority  of  discovery  could  consti- 
tute title,  our  claim  would  be  unquestionable ;  for  Sir  Francis  Drake,:^ 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  gS 

when  he  first  visited  that  country  in  1558,  found  all  the  land  unappro- 
priated, and  took  possession  of  it,  giving  it  the  title  of  New  Albion. 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  this  constitutes  a  claim ;  but  owing,  subse- 
quently, to  a  seizure  of  British  vessels  at  Nootka,  and  to  a  dispute 
which  arose  in  consequence,  it  was  arranged  by  the  Treaty  of  the  Es- 
curial  that  the  subjects  of  the  contracting  parties  should  not  be  mo- 
lested in  fishing  and  making  settlements  in  parts  not  hitherto  occupied. 
In  1792,  the  country  adjacent  to  the  Columbia  River  was  taken  pos- 
session of  by  Cook,  and  was  explored  in  1813  by  the  Northwestern 
Company,  now  called  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  who  established 
themselves  in  Port  St.  George,  under  the  government  of  British  laws, 
continuing  to  the  present  day,  and  being  the  first  establishment  in  that 
country  of  a  lawful  and  national  character,  and  recognized  as  such  by 
foreign  States." 

In  the  paragraph  I  have  read,  there  are  numerous  errors 
in  the  statement  of  facts,  and  I  must  ask  the  indulgence  of 
the  Senate  while  I  point  some  of  them  out. 

1.  Sir  Francis  Drake  arrived  on  the  northwest  coast  of 
America  in  1579,  and  not  in  1558,  as  stated  by  Lord  Clar- 
endon, making  a  difference  of  twenty-one  years  in  point  of 
time.  If  this  error  of  date,  which  may  possibly  be  typo- 
graphical, were  the  only  one,  I  should  not  have  troubled  the 
Senate  with  any  reference  to  it.  But  there  are  graver  mis- 
apprehensions in  this  statement.  It  will  be  seen,  that, 
though  Lord  Clarendon  does  not  venture  to  refer  to  Sir 
Francis  Drake's  visit  to  the  northwest  coast  as  constituting 
a  title  of  itself,  he  presents  it  as  evidence  of  "  priority  of 
discovery."  Sir,  that  navigator  can,  in  no  just  sense,  be 
said  to  have  visited  the  disputed  Territory  of  which  Lord 
Clarendon  was  speaking.  The  Territory  commences  at  the 
42d  parallel  of  latitude,  and  runs  north  to  54<^  4(y.  Sir 
Francis  Drake  landed  at  88''.  He  sailed  along  the  coast 
north  of  this  parallel,  according  to  the  best  authorities,  only 
as  high  as  43°.  Nor  can  his  visit,  in  any  just  sense,  be 
regarded  as  a  discovery.  The  country,  including  the  Bay  of 
St.  Francisco,  where  he  landed,  was  previously  known.  It 
had  been  seen  thirty  years  before  as  high  as  the  48d  parallel 
by  Ferrelo,  who  was  sent  out  by  the  Viceroy  of  Mexico  for 


S4f  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

the  express  purpose  of  exploring  and  extending  the  dominion 
of  Spain  over  it ;  and  it  was  taken  possession  of  at  or  near 
the  very  point  where  Drake  landed,  and  at  various  others, 
long  before  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  claimed  any- 
right  of  possession,  growing  out  of  this  pretended  discovery, 
and  the  visits  of  her  navigators  to  the  northwest  coast. 

Besides,  Drake's  expedition  was  in  the  nature  of  a  pirati- 
<;al  enterprise,  and  not  an  enterprise  of  legitimate  warfare. 
England  and  Spain  were  at  peace.  Jt  is  true,  the  two  sov- 
ereigns, Elizabeth  and  Philip,  were  engaged  in  secret  plots 
against  each  other,  —  the  former  by  fomenting  disturbances 
in  the  Low  Countries,  and  the  latter  by  setting  on  foot 
rebellions  in  Ireland;  but  it  was  several  years  later  before 
these  intrigues  broke  out  into  the  open  hostility,  of  which 
the  chief  incident  was  the  destruction  of  the  Invincible  Ar- 
mada. (Sir,  the  contradiction  of  terms  is  the  work  of  his- 
tory, not  mine.)  Yet  Elizabeth,  after  Drake's  return  to 
England,  on  the  application  of  the  Spanish  ambassador  com- 
plaining of  his  piracies,  restored  a  portion  of  the  booty  he 
had  taken,  and  by  this  restitution  admitted  the  unlawfulness 
of  his  expedition.  It  is  only  necessary  to  look  into  Hume 
to  see  in  what  light  it  has  always  been  viewed  by  the  eye  of 
legitimate  history.  Sir,  it  should  need  some  boldness,  one 
would  think,  to  set  up  a  claim  even  to  "  priority  of  discov- 
ery "  on  the  basis  of  a  transaction  like  this. 

£.  Lord  Clarendon  states  that  the  country  adjacent  to  the 
Columbia  River  was  taken  possession  of  in  179^  by  Cap- 
tain Cook.  Sir,  Captain  Cook  never  saw  the  Columbia 
River,  nor  landed  in  the  immediately  adjacent  country.  His 
visit  was  to  Nootka  Sound,  on  the  island  of  Quadra  and 
Vancouver,  separated  from  the  continent  by  the  Strait  of 
Euca.  His  voyage  is  referred  by  Lord  Clarendon  to  the 
year  179^.  It  was,  in  fact,  made  in  177^,  fourteen  years 
before  the  Columbia  River  was  entered  or  even  certainly 
known  to  exist.  Ten  years  after  Cook's  voyage  to  the 
coast,  Meares^  on  whose  explorations  the  British  Government 


II 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  35 

partially  rests  its  title,  reported  he  could  say  with  certainty, 
no  such  river  as  the  St.  Roc  (the  Columbia)  existed.  Four 
years  later  still,  Vancouver,  after  a  most  careful  examination 
of  the  coast,  came  to  the  same  conclusion,  as  we  have  seen. 
Sir,  Lord  Clarendon  evidently  confounded  the  voyage  of 
Cook  with  that  of  Vancouver,  without  an  accurate  refer- 
ence to  either. 

S.  It  is  equally  erroneous  to  say  that  the  Northwest 
Company  explored  the  country  in  1818,  and  established 
themselves  in  Port  St.  George.  Explorations  had  been 
made,  first  by  Lewis  and  Clarke,  military  officers  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  and  then  by  Thompson  and 
others,  in  the  service  of  the  British  and  American  fur  com- 
panies. But  no  particular  explorations,  I  believe,  were 
made  in  the  year  referred  to.  The  stock  and  property  of 
the  American  Company  at  Astoria  were  sold  to  the  North- 
west Company  in  that  year ;  but  the  place  was  restored  to 
the  United  States  in  1818,  and  no  attempt  was  niade  by 
the  Government  of  Great  Britain  to  extend  its  laws  over 
any  part  of  the  Territory  until  1821,  eight  years  after  the 
time  at  which  Lord  Clarendon  represents  Astoria  as  being 
under  the  government  of  British  laws,  having  the"  charac- 
ter of  a  national  establishment  of  Great  Britain,  and  recog- 
nized as  such  by  foreign  nations.  Sir,  it  has  never  pos- 
sessed such  a  national  character,  lior  been  so  recognized.  If 
his  Lordship  had  taken  the  trouble  to  look  at  the  statement 
of  the  British  commissioners,  (Messrs.  Huskisson  and  Ad- 
dington,)  in  1826,  he  would  have  found  they  distinctly 
denied  that  it  was  a  "  national  possession  "  or  a  "  military 
post "  in  the  hands  of  the  Americans ;  and  they  endeavored 
to  show  by  argument  that  it  was  not  such  in  the  hands  of 
the  Northwest  Company  after  its  purchase.  Its  restoration 
to  us  in  1818  is  incompatible  with  the  assumption  that  it 
has  such  a  national  character  now.  The  assumption  is 
equally  inconsistent  with  the  conditions  of  the  treaties  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  which  virtually 


35  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

preclude  such  an  exclusive  exercise  of  sovereignty  on  her 
part  as  to  give  any  establishments  made  by  her  subjects  a 
character  of  nationality.  Nay,  sir,  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  claims  of  Great  Britain  herself,  whose  commissioners,  in 
1826,  expressly  renounced  all  pretensions  to  a  right  of  ex- 
clusive sovereignty  over  any  portion  of  the  Oregon  Territory. 
It  is  difficult  to  fancy  a  paragraph  of  as  many  words  so 
replete  with  error  as  the  one  on  which  I  am  commenting. 

I  regret  to  say  that  the  subject  was  presented  to  the 
House  of  Commons  with,  if  possible,  still  greater  misrepre- 
sentations, and  from  an  equally  distinguished  source;  though 
I  might  not  have  felt  myself  called  on  to  notice  them,  but 
for  their  connection  with  the  incidents  I  have  been  examin- 
ing, and  particularly  the  question  of  title. 

The  subject  was  introduced  into  thje  House  of  Commons 
by  Lord  John  Russell,  much  in  the  same  manner  as  it  was 
presented  to  the  House  of  Lords,  —  not  in  the  shape  of  a 
call  for  information,  but  in  the  nature  of  a  protest  against 
some  of  the  positions  taken  by  the  President  in  his  inaugural 
speech.  This  gentleman  is  a  distinguished  member  of  the 
Whig  party,  a  member  of  a  former  ministry,  and  was  re- 
cently called  on  by  her  Majesty  to  form  another,  but  did  not 
succeed.  I  will  now  read  to  the  Senate  that  part  of  his 
Lordship's  remarks  which  relates  to  the  discovery  of  the 
Columbia  River,  one  of  the  principal  historical  facts  on 
which  the  United  States  rest  their  claim  to  the  Oregon 
Territory :  — 

"  Now,  it  appears  that  Captain  Vancouver  was  sent  out  by  the  Brit- 
ish Government  to  discover  the  line  of  coast,  and  to  take  possession  of 
certain  parts  laid  down  in  his  instructions ;  and  here  we  come  to  an- 
other part  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  —  to  a  part  of  their 
claims  where  they  put  in  their  claim  to  discovery  upon  a  transaction 
which  I  will  now  proceed  to  relate.  It  appears  that  a  merchant  vessel, 
called  the  Columbia,  under  a  Captain  Gjay,  discovered  an  inlet,  which, 
was  supposed  to  be  an  inlet  of  a  river.  It  appears  that,  after  some 
days,  in  the  month  of  May,  1792,  passed  partly  at  anchor  and  partly] 
in  endeavoring  to  ascertain  the  limits  of  that  bay,  this  vessel  sailed  out 
again  into  the  Pacific  Ocean.     There  is  a  very  clear  account  given  by! 


THE   OREGON  QUESTION.  3y 

Captain  Gray,  the  commander  of  that  vessel,  that,  *  after  some  days, 
he  says,  '  we  thought  we  had  found  a  channel,  but  found  we  were  mis- 
taken. There  is  no  channel  in  the  part  which  we  endeavored  to  pene- 
trate, and  therefore  we  must  return.'  Shortly  after  this,  Captain  Van- 
couver arrived  on  the  coast.  He  not  only  went  into  the  same  inlet,  but 
he  sent  his  lieutenant  —  a  Lieutenant  Broughton  —  to  discover  the 
river,  and  to  go  in  a  boat  to  a  distance  up  the  river.  Lieutenant 
Broughton  was  more  successful  than  Captain  Gray.  He  actually  dis- 
covered the  entrance  Of  the  Columbia  River.  He  went  up  it  in  his 
boat  several  days,  to  the  distance,  I  think,  of  some  ninety  or  one  hun- 
dred miles.  He  discovered  the  territory  surrounding  it.  It  was  agreed 
that  the  river  should  be  called  by  the  name  of  Columbia,  and  Lieu- 
tenant Broughton  returned  to  his  ship.  But  Captain  Vancouver  took 
possession  of  that  river,  the  coast  adjacent,  and  the  Nootka  Sound,  in 
the  name  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  England.  (Hear,  hear !)  Then, 
sir,  there  was  something  of  valid  title." 

I  confess  it  was  with  equal  regret  and  surprise  that  I  read 
this  statement  of  a  transaction  which  has  hecome  matter  of 
history,  and  in  respect  to  the  facts  of  which  there  is  no  rea- 
sonable ground  for  serious  misconception.  I  have  looked 
in  vain  for. the  quotation  Lord  John  Russell  professes  to 
make  from  Captain  Gray.  There  is  no  such  statement  in 
the  only  account  which  I  have  seen  given  by  the  latter  of 
the  discovery  of  the  Columbia  River,  —  the  certified  copy 
of  his  log  in  the  State  Department.  His  Lordship  goes  on 
to  state  that  Vancouver  shortly  after  arrived  on  the  coast, 
and  not  only  went  into  the  inlet,  but  sent  in  Lieutenant 
Broughton,  "  who  actually  discovered  the  entrance  to  the 
Columbia  River."  Now,  the  Senate  will  observe  that,  in 
order  to  sustain  this  most  unauthorized  assumption,  almost 
all  the  important  facts  relating  to  the  discovery  of  the 
Columbia  River  —  facts  shown  by  Vancouver's  own  "Jour- 
nal"—  are  kept  out  of  view:  the  meeting  of  Gray  with 
Vancouver  on  the  £9th  April,  179^,  five  months  previously, 
near  the  Strait  of  Fuca ;  the  information  given  by  Gray  to 
the  latter  of  the  discovery  of  the  river,  and  of  his  unsuc- 
cessful attempts  to  enter  it ;  the  incredulity  of  Vancouver, 
and  his  continued  conviction  that  no  such  river  existed ;  the 


^3  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

return  of  Gray  to  the  river,  his  success  in  entering  it ;  the 
arrival  of  Vancouver  at  Nootka,  where  he  obtained  copies 
of  Gray's  charts  left  with  Quadra,  by  the  aid  of  which 
Vancouver  was  enabled  to  find  the  stream,  and  send  up  his 
lieutenant,  Broughton,  to  explore  it.  I  say,  sir,  all  these 
material  facts  are  suppressed  —  I  trust  not  intentionally  — 
to  sustain  the  unfounded  assumption  that  Broughton  was  the 
discoverer  of  the  Columbia.  But  it  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  Mr.  Falconer,  a  respectable  British  writer,  who  has 
recently  published  a  pamphlet  on  Oregon,  and  who  wrote 
about  the  time  Lord  John  Russell  spoke,  admits  that  Gray 
was  the  first  person  who  noticed  the  Columbia  River  after 
Heceta,  and  concedes  the  discovery  to  the  latter.  Happily, 
the  historical  facts  are  too  well  authenticated  to  be  perma- 
nently misunderstood.  They  were  so  well  known  at  the 
time,  that  even  the  rivalry  —  not  to  say  the  detraction  —  of 
the  day  conceded  to  Gray  the  merit  of  the  discovery,  by  i 
designating  the  river  by  the  name  he  gave  it,  —  the  name 
of  the  vessel  that  first  entered  its  waters.  In  regard  to  the  ; 
attempt  to  restrict  Gray's  discovery  to  the  bay  or  mouth  of 
the  'river,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  the  settlement  at 
Astoria  is  universally  admitted  to  be  on  the  Columbia  River. 
Is  it  not  so,  sir  1  It  is  designated  "  the  settlement  on  the 
Columbia  River,"  in  the  despatch  of  Earl  Bathurst  directing 
it  to  be  restored  to  us  in  1818,  as  well  as  in  the  act  of  res- 
toration. Now,  sir,  Captain  Gray  ascended  the  river,  not 
only  as  high  as  Astoria,  which  is  ten  miles  from  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  but  at  least  six  miles  above  it,  according  to  Brough- 
ton himself.  Look  at  the  map  of  Oregon  on  your  table,  by 
Captain  Wilkes,  and  you  will  find  Gray's  Bay,  so  named  by 
Broughton,^  on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia,  and  higher 
up  than  Astoria.  According  to  Gray's  own  log,  he  anchored, 
the  day  he  discovered  and  entered  the  river,  ten  miles  above 
the  entrance,  and,  three  days  after,  he  sailed  twelve  or  fifteen 
miles  higher  up.     He  must,  therefore,  have  been  from  six  to 

1  See  Vancouver's  Journal,  Vol.  HI.  p.  92. 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  39 

fifteen  miles  above  the  site  of  the  settlement  at  Astoria, 
What,  then,  becomes  of  the  attempt  of  Broughton,  revived 
by  British  statesmen,  not  negotiators,  (no  negotiator  at  this 
day  would  so  risk  his  reputation,)  to  restrict  Gray's  dis- 
covery to  the  mouth  of  the  stream  ? 

Lord  John  Russell's  statement  is  equally  erroneous  in 
other  particulars,  —  erroneous  in  saying  that  Vancouver 
entered  the  Columbia,  or  the  inlet,  —  erroneous  in  saying 
that  he  took  possession  of  Nootka  Sound.  His  vessel,  the 
Discovery,  did  not  pass  the  bar  at  the  mouth  of  the  Colum- 
bia River ;  he  did  not  take  possession  of  Nootka ;  Quadra 
refused  to  make  a  formal  surrender  of  anything  but  Meares's 
Cove,  which  he  would  not  accept ;  and  the  formality  of 
taking  possession  of  the  Columbia  River  was  performed  by 
Broughton,  after  Vancouver  had  left  the  coast,  much  in  the 
same  way  as  it  had  been  done  years  before  by  the  Spaniards, 
who  were  the  first  discoverers  and  explorers  of  the  country, 
I  repeat,  and  I  say  it  with  regret,  that,  besides  the  errors  in 
point  of  fact,  the  leading  and  material  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  discovery  of  the  Columbia  River  are  kept 
out  of  view.  I  do  not  expect  British  statesmen  to  produce 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  American  title ;  but  when  they 
undertake  to  refer  to  historical  facts,  resting  on  their  own 
authorities  and  in  their  own  possession,  they  are  bound  to 
state  them  with  accuracy.  Sir,  we  may  excuse  illogical 
deductions  from  admitted  data;  we  may  look  with  indul- 
gence on  differences  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  same  facts, 
knowing,  as  we  do,  our  liability  to  be  biased  by  prejudice  or 
by  too  partial  views  of  personal  or  national  interest.  But, 
for  an  omission  of  essential  .circumstances  in  the  discussion 
of  an  important  national  question,  —  a  discussion  entered 
upon  voluntarily,  for  the  purpose  of  enlightening  the  public 
mind  of  a  nation,  —  there  can  be  no  apology,  even  though  it 
arise  from  the  want  of  a  sufficiently  careful  examination  of 
the  subject.  On  the  Oregon  question,  it  is  well  known  that 
great  excitement  existed  at  the  time  in  Great  Britain  and 


40  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

the  United  States, — an  excitement  which  exists  still,  though 
happily  somewhat  abated,  —  an  excitement  which  needs, 
perhaps,  but  little  provocation  to  break  out  into  open  hos- 
tilities; and  no  man  who  appreciates  as  he  ought  the 
calamities  which  would  flow  from  an  interruption  of  the 
amicable  relations  existing  between  us  should  be  willing 
to  incur  the  responsibility  of  misleading  the  public  judg- 
ment of  either  country;  or,  if  he  does  misdirect  it,  he 
should  at  least  have  the  consolation  of  reflticting  that  it  was 
through  erroneous  deductions,  and  not  a  misstatement  of 
facts  fairly  within  his  knowledge. 

The  misrepresentations  to  which  I  have  alluded^are  the 
more  to  be  regretted  for  the  reason,  if  I  do  not  err,  that 
they  constitute  almost  the  only  views  of  the  subject  which 
reach  the  great  mass  of  the  British  people.     In  this  country,4 
statements  of  both    sides  of  great    national    questions    are^ 
equally  diffused.     Look  at  our  newspapers,  and  they  will 
be  found  filled  with  the  diplomatic  correspondence  between 
the  British  and  American  plenipotentiaries.     The  letters  of 
Mr.  Pakenham  are  published  with  those  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
and  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  are  as  widely  circulated.     All  read, 
compare,  and  judge  them,     it  is  not  so  in  Great  Britain. 
As  a  general  rule,  the  British  side  of  the  question  only  is 
presented  to  the  British  public.     Nor  is  it  the  official  argu- 
ment of  the   Government,   drawn    up  by  the   diplomatist,] 
under  a  sense  of  his  responsibility  to  the  criticism  of  other] 
nations   and   the   general  judgment  of  mankind.     No,  sir. 
It  is   more  frequently   the   "  tirade "  of  the   pohtician,   by 
which  the  public  mind  of  Great  Britain  is  made   to  pro- 
nounce judgment  upon  great  questions  of  international  right 
and  duty. 

These  misrepresentations  are  still  more  to  be  regretted, 
because  they  constitute  the  basis  of  the  statements  which 
find  their  way  to  the  continent.  Through  "  Galignani's 
Messenger,"  the  echo  of  the  British  press,  they  are  trans- 
lated  into    French,    and    widely    circulated,    poisoning    the 


THE    OREGON   QUESTION.  4,1 

whole  public  mind  of  the  Continent,  and  exciting  prejudice 
against  us. 

I  will  only  add  that  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen  in  one  House, 
and  Sir  Robert  Peel  in  the  other,  adverted  to  these  state- 
ments in  a  manner  which,  though  not  altogether  unexcep- 
tionable, was  in  general  dignified  and  statesmanlike ;  and  it 
is  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  the  better  feeling  which  now 
exists  between  the  two  countries  may  continue  unabated,  and 
lead  to  a  settlement  of  the  question  on  terms  honorable  to 
both. 

I  feel  that  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate  for  this  long 
digression.  I  trust  it  will  be  found  in  the  consideration, 
that  the  inaccuracies  I  have  endeavored  to  point  out  did  not 
go  to  the  world  with  the  mere  weight  of  an  ordinary  legisla- 
tive debate,  but  with  all  the  evidences  of  deliberation  and 
arrangement,  and  therefore  calculated  to  be  more  dangerous 
in  propagating  error. 

[It  was  now  three  o'clock,  and  Mr.  Dix  gave  way  to  a  motion  of 
Mr.  Sevier,  that  the  Senate  adjourn. 
The  Senate  accordingly  adjourned. 

Thursday,  February  19,  1846. 

Mr.  Dix  was  about  to  resume  his  remarks,  which  he  had  not  con- 
cluded at  the  hour  of  adjournment  yesterday,  but  yielded  the  floor  to 

Mr.  J.  M.  Clayton,  who  said  he  desired  an  opportunity  to  ojQTer  a 
few  remarks  relative  to  an  allusion  made  to  him  by  the  Senator  from 
New  York,^  in  the  opening  of  his  speech  yesterday.  He  is .  reported 
to  have  said  :  — 

"  In  entering  into  the  debate  on  the  question  under  consideration,  I 
feel  constrained  to  differ  in  opinion  with  two  distinguished  senators 
who  have  preceded  me,  in  relation  to  the  manner  in  which  the  discus- 
sion should  be  conducted.  I  allude  to  the  Senator  from  Ohio,^  who 
opened  the  debate,  and  the  Senator  from  Delaware,*  who  followed  him, 
not  now  in  his  seat.  Both  took  the  ground,  and  with  equal  perempto- 
riness,  that  the  title  to  Oregon  ought  not  to  be  discussed,  but  for  totally 
different  reasons:  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  because  the  time  for  dis- 
cussing it  had  gone  by ;  and  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  because  the 
time  for  discussing  it  had  not  arrived.     With  the  unfeigned  respect 

1  Mr.  Dix.  2  Mr.  Allen.  "^  Mr.  J.  M.  Clayton. 


4£  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

which  I  entertain  for  them,  I  dissent  from  their  opinion  with  great  dif- 
fidence of  my  own." 

As  the  Senator  said,  he  (Mr.  C.)  was  temporarily  absent  from  his  seat, 
but  came  in  a  few  minutes  after  the  Senator  had  made  that  remark.  He 
had  mistaken  his  (Mr.  C.'s)  position.  When  he  had  the  honor  of  address- 
ing the  Senate  on  the  12th  instant,  he  did  object  to  the  discussion  of  the 
title  in  open  session,  but  he  avowed  distinctly  at  the  time  his  perfect 
willingness  to  enter  at  any  moment  on  that  discussion  in  executive 
session.  He  did  not  mean  to  say,  nor  did  he  think  that  he  was -gener- 
ally understood  at  the  time  as  meaning  to  say,  that  he  objected  to  the 
discussion  of  the  question  at  that  very  nioment.  On  the  contrary,  he 
thought  that  he  expressed  his  willingness  to  go  into  it  then,  if  his  asso- 
ciates in  the  Senate  wished  to  do  so,  —  but  in  executive  session.  And 
he  begged  the  Senator  to  recollect  the  reason  which  he  assigned  why 
the  discussion  should  be  so  conducted.  He  said  that,  if  the  question 
were  to  be  settled  by  treaty  between  the  two  governments,  the  re- 
marks made  in  open  session  were  calculated  to  prejudge,  and  must 
necessarily  prejudge,  the  question  which  would  arise  upon  the  treaty. 
He  thought  then,  and  he  thought  so  still,  that,  if  the  question  were  to 
be  settled  in  that  manner,  great  danger  might  arise  from  these  public 
discussions,  because  it  would  be  recollected  that  it  took  but  nineteen  of 
them  to  defeat- any  treaty ;  and  if  the  discussion  became  extended,  as 
was  very  likely,  there  was  danger  that  nineteen  senators  might  become 
80  committed  before  the  whole  country  in  regard  to  the  title,  and  differ-] 
ing  from  the  Executive,  why,  then,  was  it  not  obvious  that  their  con-1 
sideration  of  the  treaty  would  be  seriously  trammelled  ?  On  the  other 
hand,  he  thought  then,  and  thought  still,  that  if  discussed  in  executive 
session  no  such  difficulty  could  occur ;  no  man  would  be  then  commit- 
ted before  the  country.  But  open  discussion  was  attended  with  th( 
danger  of  so  many  men  committing  themselves  on  some  parallel  of  lat-«J 
itude  different  from  that  presented  in  the  treaty. 

If  the  Senator  would  pardon  him  a  few  moments  longer,  he  woul( 
make  a  single  reference  to  a  remark  which  fell  from  the  honorabU 
Senator  from  Indiana.^     He   seemed   to   apprehend   that   there  waaj 
greater  danger  of  strangling  Oregon  in  that  chamber  than  elsewhere. 
How  so  ?   He  (Mr.  C.)  could  not  possibly  comprehend  that.  If  the  titlej 
to  Oregon  be  clear,  —  if  it  be  such  a  title  as  the  country  could  stand  upi 
for  and  fight  for,  —  it  was  one  that  would  bear  discussion  in  executive! 
session  as  well  as  anywhere  else ;  and  the  only  difference  was,  that  it 
would  be  much  more  safely  discussed  in  executive  session  than  in  open] 
session.     The   honorable    Senator,  however,  at  the  conclusion  of  his! 
eloquent  address,  seemed  to  apprehend  that  if  the  Senate   took  the^ 

1  Mr.  Hannegan. 


THE  OREGON   QUESTION.  43 

responsibility  of  discussing  this  question  in  secret  session,  perhaps  some 
Caius  Gracchus  might  drive  us  from  our  seats,  and  forcibly  expel  our 
President  from  his  elevated  seat. 

Mr.  H ANNE G AN.  If  the  Senator  from  Delaware  will  allow  me,  I 
will  restate  what  I  uttered  in  this  particular,  and  a  misreport  of  which 
was  given  in  both  the  "  Union  "  and  "  Intelligencer,"  so  gross  as  to  be 
ridiculous. 

Mr.  J.  M.  Clayton  yielded  the  floor,  when 

Mr.  Hannegan  said  that  the  language  he  uttered  was,  that  the  with- 
drawal of  so  momentous  a  question  from  the  public  eye  for  secret  delib- 
eration and  discussion,  to  be  followed  —  as  perchance  it  might  be  —  by 
a  silent  and  sudden  death  of  the  measure,  in  direct  violation  of  the  will 
of  three  fifths  of  the  American  people,  would  be  a  most  serious,  if  i)ot 
a  melancholy  hour  in  the  history  of  the  country.  It  might  prelude  the 
entrance  of  some  Caius  Gracchus  into  that  hitherto  consecrated  cham- 
ber, whose  heart,  big  with  the  fires  of  freedom,  and  roused  by  such  an 
outrage  upon  public  rights,  would  lead  him  to  address  the  mighty  tri- 
bunal without,  and,  by  this  simple  change  of  attitude,  (here  Mr.  H. 
pointed  to  the  doors  of  the  Senate,  and  raised  his  hands  to  the  gal- 
leries,) turning  from  that  venerated  chair,  reverse  thenceforth  the 
cherished  forms  of  this  body,  impair  its  dignity,  and  destroy  its  lofty 
and  commanding  attitude. 

Mr.  Clayton  was  glad  to  hear  that  explanation.] 

Mr.  Dix  then  proceeded  with  his  remarks,  and  said  :  — 

I  beg  the  Senator  from  Delaware  to  be  assured  that  noth- 
ing would  give  me  more  pain  than  to  misstate  any  senator 
on  this  floor ;  and  I  accept  with  great  pleasure  the  explana- 
tion which  he  has  made.  I  desire  also  to  say,  in  justice  to 
him  as  well  as  to  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  that  I  did  not  use 
the  term  "  peremptoriness "  in  referring  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  had  insisted  that  the  question  of  title  ought  not, 
in  their  opinion,  to  be  discussed.  I  said  they  had  taken  the 
position  in  equally  strong  language. 

I  now  resume  the  consideration  of  the  important  question 
on  which  I  had  the  honor  to  address  the  Senate  yesterday ; 
and  in  doing  so  I  cannot  withhold  the  expression  of  my 
sense  of  the  kind  indulgence  which  has  been  extended  to 
me.  I  will  endeavor  to  afford  the  Senate  a  substantial  proof 
of  that  sense  of  obligation  on  my  part,  by  bringing  my  re- 
marks to  a  close  in  the  briefest  possible  period  of  time. 


4^4.  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

The  historical  sketch  which  I  was  making  of  the  discov- 
eries and  establishments  in  Oregon,  when  the  Senate  ad- 
journed yesterday,  ended  with  the  year  179^. 

The  discovery  of  Bulfinch's  Harbor  and  the  Columbia 
River  by  Gray,  and  the  explorations  of  Galiano,  Valdes, 
and  Vancouver,  in  the  Strait  of  Fuca,  in  that  year,  termi- 
nated the  series  of  maritime  discoveries  in  the  disputed 
territory,  which  had  commenced  two  centuries  and  a  half 
before.  From  that  time  to  the  present,  nothing  has  been 
done  on  the  coast  but  to  fill  up  the  smaller  details  of  the 
great  outline  completed  by  the  labors  of  these  navigators. 

In  the  same  year,  (179^,)  Mackenzie,  leaving  Fort  Chip- 
pewyan,  on  the  Athabasca  Lake,  in  the  58  th  parallel  of  lati- 
tude, and  nearly  midway  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans,  proceeded  westward  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  where 
he  passed  the  winter.  The  next  spring  he  resunaed  his 
journey,  struck  the  Tacoutche  Tessee,  (now  Frazer's  River,) 
in  the  54th  parallel  of  latitude,  and  descended  it  some  two 
hundred  and  fifty  miles.  He  then  continued  his  course  to 
the  west,  and  reached  the  Pacific  in  north  latitude  5£°  SCV,  — 
about  a  degree  north  of  the  island  of  Quadra  and  Vancouver. 
Frazer's  River,  which  takes  its  rise  near  the  55th  parallel  of 
latitude,  was  for  nineteen  years  supposed  to  be  the  northern 
branch  of  the  Columbia;  but,  in  181£,  it  was  ascertained  by 
Frazer  to  debouch  in  the  Strait  of  Fuca,  at  the  49th  paral- 
lel of  latitude.  It  waters  the  district  of  country  immediately 
west  and  north  of  the  valley  drained  by  the  upper  branch  of 
the  Columbia.  This  district  is  a  part  of  the  great  section 
of  the  northwest  coast,  bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Pacific,  of  which  the 
main  channels  of  access  had  been  laid  open  by  previous  dis- 
coveries. 

In  1804,  Captains  Lewis  and  Clarke  set  out  on  their  ex- 
pedition to  Oregon;  and,  in  1805,  after  incredible  hardships 
and  labors,  they  established  themselves  on  the  north  side  of 
the  Columbia  River,  near  its  mouth,,  and  subsequently  on 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  45 

the  south  side,  and  passed  the  winter  there.  In  the  spring 
of  1806,  they  commenced  their  journey  homeward,  and 
reached  the  Mississippi  in  the  fall  of  that  year,  having  trav- 
elled over  9000  miles.  This  expedition  was  fitted  out  under 
the  direction  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and 
executed  by  officers  in  its  service  at  the  public  expense.  It 
was  undertaken  on  the  recommendation  of  the  President, 
communicated  in  a  message  to  Congress  in  1808.  One 
of  its  objects  was  to  examine  the  country  watered  by  the 
Columbia  River,  which  had  been  discovered  by  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States ;  and  it  resulted  in  a  survey  —  necessarily 
cursory  —  of  the  main  southern  branch  of  the  river,  of  the 
principal  stream  to  its  mouth  from  the  junction  of  the  latter 
with  it,  and  of  a  portion  of  Clarke's  River,  which  empties 
into  the  northern  branch  between  the  48th  and  49th  par- 
allels of  latitude.  This  was  the  first  exploration  of  the 
Columbia  made  subsequently  to  179^,  when  it  was  ascended 
by  Gray,  its  discoverer,  some  twenty  miles,  and  five  months 
after  by  a  detachment  from  Vancouver's  party,  under 
Broughton,  about  one  hundred  miles,  from  its  mouth. 

It  is  also  to  be  considered  that  the  expedition  of  Lewis 
and  Clarke  was  undertaken  immediately  after  the  cession  of 
the  Territory  of  Louisiana  to  the  United  States  by  France, — 
a  Territory  admitted  to  include  all  the  country  drained  by  the 
Mississippi  and  its  tributaries  to  their  head-waters.  It  was 
also  the  understanding  at  the  time,  that  it  was  separated 
from  the  British  possessions  in  North  America  by  the  49th 
parallel  of  latitude,  extended  westward  from  the  Lake  of  the 
Woods  indefinitely.  Mr.  Monroe,  in  a  paper  presented  to 
Lord  Harrowby  in  1804,  at  London,  stated  that  it  had  been 
so  settled  by  commissaries  appointed  by  France  and  England 
under  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht;  and  the  statement  was  not 
impugned  or  objected  to.  I  am  aware  that  a  doubt  has 
recently  been  raised  as  to  the  fact  of  such  a  line  having 
been  agreed  on ;  but,  after  nearly  a  century  and  a  half,  it  is 
questionable  whether  an  arrangement  which  had  been  acqui- 


46  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

esced  in  [Colonel  Benton  here  added  —  "  and  acted  on  " 
as  having  been  made  by  the  competent  authority  at  tW 
proper  time,  can  be  denied,  even  though  no  authentic  recon 
of  the  meeting  of  the  commissaries  can  be  found.^  Othei 
persons  were  employed  by  the  Government  to  survey  thd 
southern  portions  of  Louisiana;  and  these  contemporaneous 
expeditions  must  be  regarded  by  the  world  as  a  public  manii 
festation  of  the  intention  of  the  United  States  to  assert  all 
the  rights  she  might  justly  claim,  by  discovery  or  otherwise, 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  country  between  the  Mississippi 
and  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

In  1806,  Mr.  Frazer,  an  agent  of  the  Northwest  Com--^ 
pany,  formed  an  establishment  on  Frazer's  Lake,  in  the  54*th 
parallel  of  latitude;    and  this   was  the  first  establishment 
ever  made  by  British  subjects  west  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains. 

In  March,  1811,  the  Pacific  Fur  Company,  of  which' 
John  Jacob  Astor,  of  New  York,  was  the  principal,  formed 
an  establishment  at  Astoria,  on  the  south  bank  of  the 
Columbia  River,  about  ten  miles  from  its  mouth,  having 
first  established  themselves  on  the  north  bank ;  and  this  was 
the  first  settlement  ever  made  on  the  Columbia,  or  in  the  ter- 
ritory watered  by  that  river  or  its  tributaries,  excepting  two 
temporary  establishments,  in  1809  and  1810,  formed  also  by 
American  citizens,  which  were  soon  abandoned  in  conse- 
quence of  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  provisions,  and  other 
embarrassments.  The  Astoria  Company  also  formed  an  es- 
tablishment in  1811,  on  the  Okanagan,  a  tributary  entering' 
the  Columbia  on  the  north  side,  between  the  48th  and  ^Qth 
parallels  of  latitude;  and  in  1812,  another  near  it  on  the 
Spokan,  also  a  tributary  of  the  great  river. 
,  In  1818,  the  Pacific  Company,  in  consequence  of- the  em- 
barrassments growing  out  of  the  war  of  1812  with  Great 
Britain,  sold  "  its  establishments,  furs,  and  stock  in  hand," 
(including  the  posts  on  the  Okanagan  and  the  Spokan,)  to 

^  See  an  elaborate  examination  of  the  question  in  Greenhow's  Oregon,  p.  276. 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  47 

the  Northwest  Company;  and  a  few  days  afterwards  the 
British  sloop-of-war  Raccoon  arrived,  took  possession  of  the 
place,  and  hoisted  the  British  flag. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  ratified  by  us  in  18 15,  it  was 
stipulated  that  "  all  territory,  places,  and  possessions  whatso- 
ever taken  by  either  party  from  the  other  during  the  war,  or 
which  may  be  taken  after  the  signing  of  this  treaty,  except- 
ing only  the  islands  hereinafter  mentioned,  shall  be  restored 
without  delay." 

In  comphance  with  this  stipulation,  the  establishment  at 
Astoria  was  restored  to  the  United  States.  The  compliance 
was  full,  unconditional,  and  without  reservation  of  any  sort. 
No  claim  was  set  up  by  Great  Britain  in  her  written  com- 
munications with  the  United  States  on  this  subject,  at  the 
time  of  the  restoration,  in  respect  to  any  right  of  sovereignty 
or  domain  in  the  territory  thus  restored.  The  British  Min- 
ister at  Washington  had,  it  is  true,  a  year  before  objected  to 
the  restoration,  on  the  ground  that  the  place  had  been  pur- 
chased by  the  Northwest  Company,  and  that  it  had  "  been 
taken  possession  of  in  his  Majesty's  name,  and  had  been 
since  considered  as  forming  part  of  his  Majesty's  domin- 
ions." The  objection  was  virtually  abandoned  by  the  res- 
toration ;  and  as  the  place  was  restored  without  a  written 
protest  or  reservation,  the  ground  of  the  objection  may  be 
regarded  as  having  been  considered  wholly  untenable  by 
those  who  took  it.  In  this  transaction,  as  in  all  others  re- 
lating to  the  Territory  of  Oregon,  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  maintained,  in  clear  and  unequivocal  terms,  its 
right  of  sovereignty.  In  its  instructions  to  Captain  Biddle 
in  18 17,  it  directed  him  to  proceed  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia,  and  there  "  to  assert  the  claim  of  the  United 
States  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  adjacent  country,  in  a 
friendly  and  peaceable  manner,  and  without  the  employment 
of  force."  This  order  he  executed  on  the  9th  of  August, 
1818,  by  taking  formal  possession  of  the  country  on  the 
river.     The  formal  restoration  of  Astoria  was  made  on  the 


48  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

6th  of  October,  1818;  and,  in  fourteen  days  afterwards 
(on  the  SOth  October),  a  convention  was  agreed  on  by  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  containing  the  following 
article  :  — 

"  Art.  3.  It  is  agreed  that  any  country  that  may  be  claimed  by  either  i 
party  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America,  westward  of  the  Stony  Momi-  ] 
tains,  shall,  together  with  its  harbors,  bays,  and  creeks,  and  the  naviga- 
tion of  all  rivers  within  the  same,  be  free  and  open  for  the  term  of  ten 
years  from  the  date  of  the  signature  of  the  present  convention,  to  the 
vessels,  citizens,  and  subjects  of  the  two  powers ;  it  being  well  under- 
stood that  this  agreement  is  not  to  be  construed  to  the  prejudice  of  any 
claim  which  either  of  the  two  high  contracting  parties  may  have  to 
any  part  of  the  said  country,  nor  shall  it  be  taken  to  affect  the  claims 
of  any  other  power  or  state  to  any  part  of  the  said  country ;  the  only 
object  of  the  high  contracting  parties  in  that  respect  being  to  prevent* 
disputes  and  differences  among  themselves." 

On  the  6th  of  August,  18^7,  the  main  provisions  of  the 
foregoing  article  were  renewed  by  the  following  conven- 
tion :  — 

"Art.  1.  All  the  provisions  of  the  third  article  of  the  convention 
concluded  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  his  Majesty  the 
King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  on  the 
20th  of  October,  1818,  shall  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  further  indefi- 
nitely extended  and  continued  in  force,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  all  the 
provisions  of  the  said  article  were  herein  specifically  recited. 

**  Art.  2.   It  shall  be  competent,  however,  to  either  of  the  contract- 
ing parties,  in  case  either  should  think  fit,  at  any  time  after  the  20 1 
October,  1828,  on  giving  due  notice  of  twelve  months  to  the  oth 
contracting  party,  to  annul  and  abrogate  this  convention ;  and  it  shall, 
in  such  case,  be  accordingly  entirely  annulled  and  abrogated,  after  the 
expiration  of  the  said  term  of  service. 

"  Art.  3.  Nothing  contained  in  this  convention,  or  in  the  third  arti- 
cle of  the  convention  of  the  20th  October,  1818,  hereby  continued  in 
force,  shall  be  construed  to  impair,  or  in  any  manner  affect,  the  claims 
which  either  of  the  contracting  parties  may  have  to  any  part  of  the 
country  westward  of  the  Stony  or  Rocky  Mountains." 

On  the  basis  of  these  two  treaties  the  relations  of  the  tw( 
countries  in  respect  to  Oregon  now  rest ;  and,  in  order 
ascertain  what  are  the  rights  of  the  contracting  parties 
the  territory  in  dispute,  we  must  revert  to  the  year  1818 


4 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  49 

the  time  when  the  first  agreement  was  made  ;  .for  if,  as  has 
heen  seen,  nothing  contained  in  the  treaties  can  prejudice  in 
any  manner  their  respective  claims,  no  acts  done  since,  by- 
settlement  or  otherwise,  can  create,  in  respect  to  the  territory 
in  question,  any  rights  which  did  not  exist  then. 

This  position  was  taken  with  characteristic  vigor  and 
brevity  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from  South  Carolina,^ 
sitting  before  me,  in  a  note  dated  the  3d  of  September, 
184<4,  and  addressed  to  Mr.  Pakenham,  while  the  Senator 
was  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a  negotiator. 

Sir,  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood  on  this  point,  for 
the  reason  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  in  which  the 
Northwest  Company  has  been  merged,  has  for  several  years 
been  extending  its  establishments ;  and  because,  in  the  nego- 
tiations between  the  British  Government  and  ours,  it  has 
been  once,  at  least,  if  not  more  than  once,  intimated  by  the 
former  that  British  subjects  had  interests  there  which  it 
was  bound  to  protect.  These  establishments  have  been  made 
with  full  knowledge  of  the  stipulations  of  the  conventions 
entered  into  between  the  two  countries ;  and  on  no  ground, 
even  the  ground  of  equity,  can  any  claim  be  set  up  on  the 
basis  of  these  newly-created  interests.  To  agree  to  suspend 
the  settlement  of  the  controversy,  and  then  to  draw  from 
acts  done  by  one  of  the  parties  during  the  suspension  new 
arguments  in  favor  of  its  own  side  of  the  question,  is  not 
only  repugnant  to  every  rule  of  fairness,  but  it  is  a  violation 
of  the  letter  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  the  agreement,  and  tends 
to  the  defeat  of  the  very  object  in  view  in  making  it. 

Let  us  see,  then,  what  discoveries  had  been  made,  and 
what  establishments  formed,  in  1818.  Those  of  Spain  were 
paramount  to  all  others.  She  had  visited  and  explored  the 
whole  coast  from  California,  where  she  had  permanent  es- 
tablishments, to  the  most  northerly  line  of  the  territory  in 
dispute.  She  had  discovered  the  Strait  of  Juan  de  Fuca, 
and  formed  an  establishment  within   it,  I  think,  in   179^. 

1  Mr.  Calhoun. 


50  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

She  had  discovered  Nootka  Sound,  and  established  herself 
there.  And  she  was  strengthened  in  her  claims  to  the  abso- 
lute sovereignty  of  the  country  by  its  immediate  contiguity 
to  California,  of  which  she  had  the  undisputed  and  undivided 
possession,  with  the  exception  of  two  temporary  establish- 
ments by  the  Russians,  between  the  Bay  of  St,  Francisco  and 
Cape  Mendocino,  which  were  made  to  facilitate  their  trade 
in  furs,  and  by  permission  of  the  Spanish  Government.  It 
is  true  she  had  not  kept  up  her  establishments  north  of  Cape 
Mendocino;  but  no  others  had  been  formed  in  the  same 
localities;  and  her  rights  of  discovery,  therefore,  were  not 
superseded  by  rights  of  occupation  on  the  part  of  other 
nations  in  any  portion  of  the  territory  in  dispute,  excepting 
so  far  as  they  may  have  been  derived  from  the  American 
and  British  establishments,  to  which  I  am  about  to  refer. 

The  United  States  had  discovered  the  Columbia  River, 
and  ascended  it,  at  the  time  of  the  discovery,  to  the  distance 
of  twenty-five  miles  from  its  mouth.  They  had  also  dis- 
covered Bulfinch's  Harbor,  between  the  Columbia  and  the 
Strait  of  Fuca.  They  had  examined  the  country  watered 
by  the  Columbia  and  some  of  its  tributaries,  and  formed 
establishments  within  it  at  four  different  periods:  in  1809, 
1810,  1811,  and  1812;  the  most  southerly  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Columbia,  and  the  most  northerly  between  the  48th 
and  49th  parallels  of  latitude.  Spain  claimed  to  have  dis- 
covered the  Columbia  seventeen  years  before  Gray  entered 
it;  but,  in  1821,  she  ceded  all  her  rights  to  the  country 
north  of  42°  to  the  United  States,  by  treaty,  and  thus  gave 
us  a  title  to  the  territory  watered  by  the  river,  which  Great 
Britain  ought  never  to  have  questioned.  By  virtue-  of  the 
same  act  of  cession,  her  entire  right  to  the  coast  became 
vested  in  us. 

In  the  course  of  the  public  discussions  in  respect  to  Ore- 
gon, the  United  States  has  been  charged  with  dishonor  and 
bad  faith  in  setting  up  a  claim  to  that  Territory,  first,  by  dis- 
covery, through  the  agency  of  her  own  citizens;  and,  s< 


1 


'  THE   OREGON    QUESTION.  51 

ondly,  by  cession  of  the  rights  of  Spain.  For,  as  has  been 
said,  if  the  first  ground  was  tenable,  she  could  not,  without 
inconsistency,  set  up  a  claim  on  the  second,  because  she  had 
virtually  denied  the  second  by  assuming  the  first  as  the  basis 
of  her  right.  But,  sir,  is  it  not  quite  possible  for  two  na- 
tions to  possess  rights  by  contiguity,  or  to  acquire  them  by 
discovery,  neither  perfect,  but  capable  of  being  rendered  so 
by  a  merger  of  both  in  one  ?  Great  Britain  herself  claims 
a  right  of  joint  occupancy  with  the  United  States  in  Ore- 
gon ;  and  she  will  certainly  not  deny  that  a  cession  of  her 
right  to  us,  or  ours  to  her,,  would  create  a  perfect  title  to  the 
country,  without  affording  cause  for  any  imputation  of  dis- 
honor to  either. 

Great  Britain,  in  1818,  had  surveyed  the  Strait  of  Fuca, 
after  its  outlines  were  known ;  but  she  had  made  no  dis- 
coveries on  the  coast  which  were  not  comprehended  within 
the  boundaries  of  the  great  districts  previously  known  and 
visited.  She  may  have  had  establishments  in  the  valley  of  the 
Columbia ;  but  if  so,  I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  the 
fact.  She  had  discovered  Frazer's  River,  which  empties  into 
the  Strait  of  Fuca  at  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude ;  she  had 
traced  it  from  its  source  to  its  mouth ;  she  had  formed  an 
establishment  on  it  near  the  54th  parallel ;  and  it  only  re- 
mains to  settle  by  the  testimony  of  facts  the  geographical 
relation  which  this  river  and  its  valley  bear  to  the  river 
and  valley  of  the  Columbia.^ 

1  There  is  no  reasonable  ground  to  ume,  it  will  be  seen  that,  after  meeting 

doubt  that  the   Spaniards   discovered  Galiano  and  Valdes  near  Point  Gray, 

the  mouth  of  Frazer's  River;  but  the  (a  few  miles  north  of  the  river,)  as  he 

locality  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  so  states  at  page  209,  Vancouver  says : 

distinctly  settled  as  to  authorize  me  to  "  I  showed    them   the   sketch  I   had 

assume  it  as  a  fact  in  the  text.     On  re-  made   of  our  excursion,  and  pointed 

ferring  to  Vancouver's  Journal,  Vol.  II.  out   the  only  spot  Miiich  I  conceived 

p.  187,  it  will  be  seen  that  he  passed  we  had  left  unexamined,  nearly  at  the 

the  mouth  of  the  river  without  disco v-  head    of    Burrard's     Channel  ;     they 

ering  it,  it  being  then,  as  it  is  said  to  seemed  much  surprised  that  we  had 

be  now,  nearly  masked  by  a  shoal  ex-  not  found  a  river  said  to  exist  in  the 

tending   northwardly  from  Cape  Rob-  region   we    had    been    exploring,   and 

erts  about  seven  miles.     Cape  Roberts  named  by  one   of  their    officers   Rio 

is  the  southern  point  of  the  river,  and  Blancho,  in   compliment  to   the   then 

it  is  intersected  by  the  49th  parallel  of  prime  minister  of  Spain  ;  which  river 

latitude.    At  page  212  of  the  same  vol-  these  gentlemen  had  sought  thus  far  to 


5^  .   SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 

I  pass  by,  as  unconnected  with  the  question  for  the  rea- 
sons I  have  assigned,  all  settlements  made  subsequently  to 
1818  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  on  which  Great  Brit- 
ain has  conferred  large  and  most  important  powers  in  re- 
spect to  the  country  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  Indeed,  ; 
these  establishments  rest  upon  no  legal  concession,  even  by  ■ 
herself,  which  confers  any  right  of  domain.  The  Hudson's  3 
Bay  Company  has  a  mere  right  of  exclusive  trade  with  the 
Indians,  without  the  privilege  of  acquiring  any  title  to  the 
soil  in  Oregon;  and  in  this  respect  the  privileges  of  the 
Company  differ  materially  from  those  conferred  on  it  in  rela- 
tion to  the  territory  it  possesses  upon  Hudson's  Straits. 

I  also  pass  by,  as  idle,  the  formalities  of  taking  possession 
of  the  country  by  Broughton  on  the  Columbia,  and  Vancou- 
ver in  the  Strait  of  Fuca,  —  formalities  a  long  time  before 
performed  in  numberless  localities  by  the  Spaniards;  es- 
pecially as  those  of  the  British  navigators  were  unaccompa- 
nied by  actual  settlement  and  occupation,  and  were  in  direct- 
violation  of  a  treaty  which  those  officers  were  sent  out  to 
execute. 

I  have  endeavored,  Mr.  President,  in  the  first  part  of  my 
remarks,  to  maintain  the  Spanish  title  to  the  northwest  coast 
of  -America.  The  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  dis- 
parage it  as  antiquated  and  obsolete,  are  founded  upon  partial 
and  illiberal  views  of  the  subject.  It  is  unnecessary  to  say  to 
you,  sir,  or  the  Senate,  that  antiquity  is  the  highest  element 
of  title,  if  the  chain  can  be  traced  down  unbroken  and  entire 
to  our  own  times.  The  Spanish  title  to  the  northwest  coast 
is  almost  coeval  with  the  voyages  oF  Columbus.  It  is  con- 
secrated by  discovery,  as  high  as  the  48d  parallel  of  latitude, 
by  the  lapse  of  more  than  three  centuries ;  as  high  as  the 
48th,  by  the  lapse  of  two  centuries  and  a  half;  and  as  high 
as  the  54th,  by  the  lapse  of  more  than  seventy  years.  Sixty 
years  ago    it   stood  undisputed   and   unimpeached    by  any 

no  purpose."    There  can  be  no  doubt    no  other  stream  in  the  region  Vancou- 
that  this  was  Frazer's  River,  as  there  is    ver  "  had  been  exploring." 


THE   OREGON  QUESTION.  53 

antagonist  claim  or  pretension  to  territorial  rights.  It  was 
confirmed  and  perfected  by  occupation,  as  high  as  49°  30, 
half  a  century  ago.  During  the  succeeding  twenty  years,  it 
was  not  superseded  by  rights  of  occupation  on  the  part  of 
other  nations,  unless  it  be  to  the  limited  extent  I  have  stated. 
During  the  last  thirty  years,  all  rights  have  been  suspended 
by  treaty  arrangements  between  the  only- two  powers  who 
can,  with  any  face,  set  up  a  claim  to  the  exercise  of  sover- 
eignty over  the  territory  to  which  it  attaches.  In  the  con- 
sideration of  national  interests  in  territorial  possessions,  it  is 
a  narrow  view  to  bind  down  sovereign  States  to  all  the  rig- 
orous technicalities  of  private  tenures.  Great  principles  of 
national  right,  viewed  liberally,  and  applied  according  to  the 
proclaimed  intentions  of  the  parties,  are  the  only  guides 
worthy  of  statesmen  or  governments  in  the  settlement  of 
questions  of  sovereignty  over  the  unoccupied  portions  of  the 
earth  we  inhabit.  The  object  of  Spain,  in  respect  to  the 
northwest  coast,  was  settlement,  —  permanent  occupation. 
The  object  of  Great  Britain  was  commerce,  traffic,  transient 
occupation.  Tested  by  the  principles  I  have  stated,  I  cannot 
hesitate  to  consider  the  Spanish  title  to  the  northwest  coast 
of  America,  which  has  of  late  been  so  much  disparaged,  as 
vesting  in  us  rights  which  are  unimpeachable. 

I  said,  at  the  commencement  of  my  remarks,  that  one 
of  my  objects  was  to  defend  the  Spanish  title  by  stating 
the  historical  facts  on  which  it  rests.  I  have  performed 
the  task  which  I  allotted  to  myself.  I  will  only  add  that, 
with  what  I  have  said,  I  am  content  to  leave  the  whole 
question  where  it  now  is,  in  the  hands  of  the  Administra- 
tion, relying  on  its  firmness  and  its  sense  of  rectitude  to 
sustain  our  just  rights,  and  to  respect  the  just  rights  of 
others. 

So  conscious  is  Great  Britain  of  the  invalidity  of  her 
title,  that  she  does  not  venture  to  assert  a  right  to  the  exclu- 
sive sovereignty  of  any  portion  of  the  Territory.  In  1826, 
she  claimed   only  a  right  of  joint    occupancy,  in   common 


54  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

with  other  powers ;  but  denied  the  right  of  exclusive  domin- 
ion in  the  United  States.  While  insisting  that  she  was 
entitled  "  to  place  her  claims  at  least  upon  a  parity  with 
those  of  the  United  States,"  she  has  constantly  refused  to  di- 
vide the  Territory  at  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  the  bound- 
ary between  her  and  us  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the 
Rocky  Mountains, — a  line  which  would  have  severed  the 
coast,  and  the  country  in  immediate  contiguity  with  it,  into 
two  parts  so  nearly  equal  as  to  leave  her  no  reasonable 
ground,  even  on  the  score  of  an  equitable  division,  for  the 
continuance  of  a  controversy.  Her  desire  for  territorial  ex- 
tension in  this  quarter  is  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  her 
colonial  dominion  over  districts  of  country  bordering  on  us, 
and  confining  our  settlements  within  narrower  limits.  Our 
contest  for  territorial  rights,  which  we  consider  indisputable, 
has  no  object  but  to  enable  our  citizens  to  extend  themselves 
to  our  natural  boundary,  —  the  Pacific.  Her  interest  is  re- 
mote and  contingent ;  ours  is  direct  and  certain.  Hers  is 
the  interest  of  a  State  in  a  distant  country  which  she  wishes 
to  colonize;  ours  is  the  interest  of  a  country  in  its  own 
proper  territory  and  settlements.  She  is  not  content  with 
subjecting  to  her  sway  the  fertile  and  opulent  regions  of  the 
East ;  but  she  comes  now  thousands  of  miles  across  the 
ocean  to  dispute  with  us  the  dominion  of  the  uninhabited 
wilderness,  and  curtail  the  area  for  our  expansion.  With 
the  least  disposition  on  her  part  to  listen  to  the  suggestions 
of  reason  and  justice,  this  question  would  long  ago  have 
been  settled  on  the  fair  and  honorable  terms  of  compromise, 
—  nay,  sir,  on  the  terms  of  concession,  —  which  we  have 
more  than  once  proposed. 

I  am  sure  that,  in  the  course  of  our  Government  in  rela- 
tion to  Great  Britain,  in  our  negotiations,  and  in  the  treaties 
which  have  been  formed  between  us,  no  evidence  will  be 
found  of  a  desire  on  our  part  to  encroach  on  her  rights,  or 
to  adjust  any  of  the  questions  which  have  arisen  between  us 
on  other  terms  than   those  of  justice  and  liberality.     The 


THE  OKEGON  QUESTION.  55 

settlement  of  the  northeastern  boundary  —  one  of  the  most 
delicate  and  difficult  that  has  ever  arisen  between  us — 
affords  a  striking  evidence  of  our  desire  to  maintain  with 
her  the  most  friendly  understanding.  We  ceded  to  her  a 
portion  of  territory  which  she  deemed  of  vital  importance 
as  a  means  of  military  communication  between  the  Canadas 
and  her  Atlantic  provinces,  and  which  will  give  her  a  great 
advantage  in  a  contest  with  us.  The  measure  was  sustained 
by  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  country,  and  I  have  no 
desire  or  intention  to  call  its  wisdom  in  question.  But  it 
proves  that  we  were  not  unwilling  to  afford  Great  Britain 
any  facility  she  required  for  consolidating  her  North  Ameri- 
can possessions,  acting  in  peace  as  though  war  was  not  to 
be  expected  between  the  two  countries.  If  we  had  cher- 
ished any  ambitious  designs  in  respect  to  them ;  if  we  had 
had  any  other  wish  than  that  of  continuing  on  terms  of 
amity  with  her  and  them ;  this  great  military  advantage 
would  never  have  been  conceded  to  her. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  regret  to  say,  that  her  course  towards 
us  has  been  a  course  of  perpetual  encroachment.  But,  sir, 
I  will  not  look  back  upon  what  is  past  for  the  purpose  of 
reviving  disturbing  recollections.  Yet  I  am  constrained  to 
say,  that,  in  respect  to  Oregon,  I  consider  her  legislation  as 
a  virtual  infraction  of  the  Conventions  of  1818  and  18^. 
By  an  Act  of  Parliament  passed  in  1821,  she  has  extended 
the  jurisdiction,  power,  and  authority  of  her  courts  of  judi- 
cature in  Upper  Canada  over  the  w^hole  Indian  territory  in 
North  America,  "not  within  her  own  provinces,  or  within 
any  civil  government  of  the  United  States,"  and  of  course 
embracing  the  Territory  of  Oregon.  She  has  given  them 
cognizance  of  every  WTong  and  injury  to  the  person  and  to 
property,  real  or  personal,  committed  within  the  Territory; 
and  has  declared  that  every  person  whatsoever  (not  British 
subjects  alone,  but  every  person  whatsoever)  residing  in  it 
shall  be  amenable  to  these  courts.  Nay,  sir,  she  has  authoi- 
ized  the  Crown  to  establish  courts  within  the  Territory  itself, 
with   power  to   try  criminal    offences   not  punishable    with 


56  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

death,  and  also  civil  causes  to  a  limited  amount,  t  believe 
,£S00,  about  $1000.  She  has  thus  assumed  to  exercise 
over  this  Territory  one  of  the  highest  attributes  of  national 
sovereignty, — that  of  deciding  upon  rights  of  property,  and 
punishing  violations  of  the  criminal  laws  she  has  extended 
over  them.  She  could  hardly  have  asserted  a  more  abso- 
lute sovereignty  than  she  has  done  by  this  unqualified  exten- 
sion of  her  laws  and  the  jurisdiction  of  her  courts  over  a 
territory  in  which  she  admits  that  she  has  no  other  right  but 
that  of  a  joint  occupancy.  I  am  aware  that  she  has  dis- 
avowed the  intention  of  enforcing  her  criminal  laws  against 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  But  if  Senators  will  turn  to 
the  documents  accompanying  the  President's  Message,  they 
will  see  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  has  a  much  more 
summary  method  of  disposing  of  American  citizens,  who 
establish  themselves  on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia,  in 
the  neighborhood  of  its  settlements.  Their  condition  will 
not  be  bettered,  if  this  exemption  from  the  operation  of  the 
British  statute  is  to  be  exchanged  for  a  forcible  process  of 
ejection  without  law. 

Under  these  circumstances,  what  is  the  duty  of  the  United 
States '?  As  I  do  not  intend  to  intrude  myself  on  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate  again,  without  absolute  necessity,  on  any 
question  relating  to  Oregon,  I  desire  to  say  now  that  I  shall 
vote  for  the  notice  to  terminate  the  Convention  of  1818, 
continued  in  force  by  that  of  18^7, — a  convention  which 
Great  Britain  treats  as  recognizing  a  right  of  joint  occu- 
pancy, but  which  has  in  reality  been  for  her  an  exclusive 
occupancy  of  the  whole  territory  north  of  the  Columbia.  I 
am  in  favor  of  extending  the  authority  of  our  laws  and  the 
jurisdiction  of  our  courts  over  the  Territory;  and  in  doing 
so,  I  would,  while  the  Convention  is  in  force,  specially 
except  British  subjects,  and  direct  them,  when  charged  with 
infractions  of  our  laws,  to  be  delivered  up  to  the  nearest 
British  authorities.  I  would  make  this  reservation  for  the 
express  purpose  of  preventing,  as  far  as  possible,  a  con- 
flict of  jurisdiction,  and  to  avoid  all  cause  for  imputing  to 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION.  5*7 

US  a  disregard  of  treaties,  or  a  desire  to  produce  collision 
or  disagreement  of  any  sort.  And  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
extension  of  the  authority  of  the  Union  over  our  fellow- 
citizens  in  that  remote  district  of  our  country,  and  to  re- 
move, as  far  as  possible,  the  obstacles  to  a  more  free  and 
efficient  intercourse  between  us  and  them,  I  would  establish 
at  once  a  chain  of  military  posts,  with  competent  garrisons 
and  armaments,  from  the  remotest  navigable  waters  which 
flow  into  the  Mississippi,  to  the  eastern  face  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  stopping  there  so  long  as  the  Convention  con- 
tinues in  force.  Duty,  honor,  policy  —  all  demand  these 
measures  at  our  hands ;  and  I  trust  they  will  be  executed 
with  promptitude  and  decision. 

Will  these  measures  produce  war?  I  cannot  believe  that 
they  will.  I  cannot  believe  it,  because  they  furnish  no  just 
ground  of  provocation.  The  right  to  give  the  notice  is 
reserved  by  treaty.  The  right  of  extending  our  laws  over 
Oregon  is  a  right  similar  to  that  which  Great  Britain  has 
already  exercised  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The  establish- 
ment of  a  chain  of  posts  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  wholly 
within  our  own  territory,  invades  no  right  in  others.  It  has 
been  inferred  from  an  expression  in  a  public  document,  that 
there  is  danger  of  an  immediate  war,  and  that  a  sudden 
blow  may  be  struck.  Sir,  I  cannot  believe  it.  A  war 
waged  against  us  on  account  of  any  one  or  all  of  the  meas- 
ures referred  to,  would  be  a  war  of  plain  unmixed  aggres- 
sion. No  nation,  in  the  present  age,  could  embark  in  such 
a  contest  without  drawing  down  upon  herself  the  condemna- 
tion of  all  civilized  communities.  She  would  find  herself 
opposed  and  restrained  by  public  opinion,  which,  in  our  day, 
rules  the  conduct  of  nations  more  powerfully  than  the  arm 
of  force.  I  hold,  therefore,  immediate  war  to  be  out  of  the 
question.  Nor  can  eventual  war  take  place,  unless  the  as- 
sertion of  our  just  rights  shall  be  forcibly  resisted.  But  I 
will  not  venture  to  pass  judgment  on  what  the  future  may 
bring  forth.     Collisions  may  grow  out  of  these  measures — 


58  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

collisions  ripening,  through  influences  and  events  which  we 
may  be  unable  to  control,  into  open  warfare.  I  should 
deeply  deplore  such  a  result.  The  interests  of  humanity, 
great  principles  of  political  right,  self-government,  freedom, 
individual  rights,  all  suffer  when  the  voice  of  the  law  is  si- 
lenced by  the  tumult  of  war.  "-Inter  arma  silent  leges,''  is 
an  adage,  of  the  truth  of  which  history  has  furnished  too 
many  fatal  proofs.  I  would  do  much  to  avert  such  a 
calamity.  I  would  do  anything  not  inconsistent  with  the 
public  honor,  to  avoid  a  contest  which  would  be  disas- 
trous to  both  parties,  no  matter  what  should  be  its  final 
issue.  But  beyond  this  I  never  can  go.  And  if  exemption 
from  war  can  only  be  purchased  by  a  surrender  of  our  just 
rights,  I  cannot  consent  to  make  the  purchase.  But  if  war 
cannot  be  averted,  T  trust  we  shall  not  commit  the  great 
error  of  undervaluing  our  adversary.  With  some  opportu- 
nity of  observing  the  condition  of  Great  Britain  near  at 
hand,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  she  was  never  capa- 
ble of  greater  efforts  than  she  is  at  the  present  moment.  I 
know  that  her  inordinate  distention  contains  within  itself  an 
element  of  vital  weakness.  It  is  not  in  the  order  of  human 
society  that  so  extended  a  dominion  should  remain  long 
unbroken.  But  I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  detect,  in  the 
condition  of  her  body  politic,  the  unerring  symptoms  of 
that  decay  which  precedes  and  works  out  the  dissolution  of 
empires.  She  has  great  abuses  to  struggle  against.  The 
Senator  from  Ohio  has  well  and  graphically  described 
them.  She  has  enormous  burdens  to  sustain ;  but  she  has 
great  strength  to  bear  them.  Her  soldiers  are  not  like  those 
of  Rome  in  its  latter  days,  enervated  in  vigor  and  relaxed 
in  discipline.  You  will  find  them  in  every  quarter  of  the 
globe:  under  the  fiery  heat  of  the  equator,  and  amid  the 
frosts  of  the  arctic  circle,  braving  the  elements,  and  setting 
danger  and  toil,  in  every  form,  at  defiance.  But,  sir,  I 
pretend  not,  with  my  narrow  foresight,  to  look  into  the 
future.     It  is  possible  that  her  hour  may  be  near  at  hand. 


THE   OREGON  QUESTION.  59 

But  we  know  that  the  last  struggle  of  the  strong  man  is 
always  the  most  desperate,  and  sometimes  the  most  danger- 
ous to  the  antagonist  who  has  brought  him  to  the  ground. 

I  say  this  in  no  spirit  of  timidity.  I  say  it  in  a  spirit  of 
prudent  forecast,  with  the  desire  that  we  may  go  into  the 
contest,  if  it  shall  come,  with  the  assurance  that  we  have  to 
deal  with  a  strong  adversary  and  not  a  weak  one,  and  that 
our  preparation  may  be  commensurate  with  the  means  of 
offence  to  which  we  shall  be  exposed.  I  have  no  doubt  of 
our  ability  both  to  defend  ourselves  and  to  give  back  effec- 
tive blows  in  return.  We  were  never  so  strong  as  we  are 
at  the  present  moment :  strong  in  our  position,  strong  in  our 
means,  strong  in  the  spirit  and  energy  of  our  people.  Our 
defenceless  condition  has  been  greatly  overstated.  We  have 
been  told  that  our  coast  is  denuded.  I  have  heard,  whether 
on  this  floor  or  elsewhere  I  do  not  know,  that  there  is 
scarcely  a  gun  mounted  for  the  defence  of  the  commercial 
metropolis  of  my  own  State.  There  cannot  be  a  greater 
error.  There  are  hundreds  of  guns,  of  heavy  calibre,  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  ready,  at  the  very  hour  in  which  I 
speak,  to  receive  an  assailant,  and  as  many  more  which  can 
be  placed  in  position  in  an  emergency,  and  this  independent- 
ly of  guns  afloat.  In  thirty  days  I  believe  the  city  might 
be  rendered,  with  a  skilful  engineer,  and  with  the  means 
which  might  be  placed  at  his  command,  prepared  —  well 
prepared  —  against  a  maritime  assault.  But,  sir,  I  turn 
away  from  all  these  forebodings  of  evil.  I  have  confidence 
in  the  continuance  of  peace.  I  believe  the  good  sense  of  both 
countries  will  revolt  at  a  contest  which  can  bring  no  good  to 
either,  and  secure  an  adjustment  of  existing  difficulties  on 
terms  honorable  to  both.  Such  is  my  conviction.  But, 
sir,  if  I  am  deceived,  then  I  have  only  to  say,  that,  while  I 
would  be  constrained  by  nothing  but  overruling  necessity  to 
take  up  the  sword,  yet,  if  the  necessity  shall  come,  I  trust 
we  shall  never  consent  to  lay  it  down  until  the  rights  and 
the  honor  of  the  country  shall  have  been  fully  vindicated. 


FRENCH    SPOLIATIONS. 

APRIL  27, 1846. 

On  the  Bill  to  provide  for  the  Satisfaction  of  Claims  of  American 
Citizens  for  Spoliations  on  their  Property  committed  by  the  French 
prior  to  the  Katification  of  the  Convention  with  France,  of  Septem- 
ber, 1800.1 

Having  been  appointed  a  member  of  tbe  Select  Com- 
mittee to  which  the  subject  under  consideration  was  referred, 
.and  having,  after  the  most  careful  examination  I  have  been 
able  to  give  it,  come  to  conclusions  adverse  to  those  at 
which  the  majority  of  the  committee  have  arrived,  I  deem 
it  incumbent  on  me  to  state  to  the  Senate  the  grounds 
on  which  my  conclusions  rest.  Nothing  but  a  sense  of 
duty,  arising  from  the  position  in  which  I  have  been  placed, 
would  induce  me  to  trespass  on  the  attention  of  the  Senate. 
I  yield  my  reluctance  to  take  part  in  the  debate,  not  merely 
to  the  fact  that  I  am  a  member  of  the  committee  specially 
charged  with  the  examination  of  the  subject,  but  to  the 
consideration  that  I  am  one  of  the  minority  of  the  com- 
mittee, and,  therefore,  in  some  degree,  bound  to  assign  thel 
grounds  of  my  dissent  from  the  opinion  of  the  majority. 
I  regret  that  the  distinguished  Senator  from  North  Carolina,] 
on  the  other  side  of  the  House,^  who  constitutes  with  myself  ■ 
the  minority  of  the  committee,  has  not  undertaken  the  per- 
formance of  this  duty,  assured,  as  I  am,  that  the  Senator's 
longer  experience  and  greater  familiarity  with  the  subject 
would  have  enabled  him  to  present  it  to  the  Senate  mucl 

1  Delivered  on  the  27th  ot  April,  1846. 

2  ]\j[j._  Mangum. 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  gX 

more  satisfactorily  than  I  can  hope  to  do.  But  the  task  has 
devolved  on  me,  and  I  will  perform  it  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  though  fully  conscious  of  the  great  disadvantage 
under  which  I  shall  labor  in  following  the  Senator  from 
Delaware,^  to  whose  able  argument  the  Senate  had  the  pleas- 
ure of  listening  on  the  last  two  days  it  was  in  session. 

The  Senator  commenced  his  remarks  with  the  observa- 
tion, that  no  portion  of  our  fellow-citizens  of  equal  num- 
ber had  less  interest  in  this  application  than  his  constit- 
uents. No  one  can  appreciate  better  than  myself  the  en- 
viable position  which  the  Senator  occupies  in  this  respect. 
I  wish  most  sincerely  I  were  in  the  same  position.  But, 
unfortunately,  it  is  quite  otherwise.  A  large  amount  of 
these  claims  is  held  in  my  own  State,  an  amount  supposed 
to  be  equal  to  one  third  of  the  whole ;  so  that,  if  this  sup- 
position were  true,  and  this  bill  should  pass,  about  seventeen 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  of  the  five  milHons  proposed  to 
be  appropriated  in  satisfaction  of  the  claims,  would  be  paid 
to  my  constituents.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  natural 
that  the  subject  should  have  been  pressed  upon  me,  not 
improperly  —  far  from  it  —  but  with  an  earnestness  pro- 
portioned to  the  magnitude  of  the  interest  at  stake.  It 
has  been,  in  some  instances,  by  personal  friends  for  whom 
I  entertain  the  sincerest  regard,  and  in  others,  by  gentlemen 
of  high  standing  in  the  city  of  New  York ;  —  by  some  who 
are  deeply  interested  in  the  claims,  and  by  others  who,  with- 
out any  interest  in  them,  believe  they  constitute  a  vahd 
demand  on  the  public  treasury.  I  have  felt  the  strongest 
inducements,  therefore,  —  the  inducements  of  respect  and 
personal  regard  for  some  of  the  claimants,  —  to  take  the 
most  favorable  view  of  the  subject  consistent  with  over- 
ruling considerations  of  public  duty.  I  have  endeavored 
to  do  them  full  justice  in  my  examination  of  it.  I  requested 
them,  before  I  had  read  a  word  on  the  subject,  to  present 
their  case  to  me.     They  did  so.     I  have  read  all  the  argu- 

1  Mr.  John  M.  Clayton. 


Q2  SPEECHES   m   THE    SENATE. 

ments  on  their  side  of  the  question  :  reviews,  reports,  and 
speeches ;  and  among  others  the  very  able  and  condensed 
statement  of  their  case  contained  in  a  speech  made  to  the 
Senate  on  the  12th  of  January,  1835,  by  the  distinguished 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,^  who  was  then,  as  he  is  now, 
the  chairman  of  the  select  committee  appointed  to  inves- 
tigate the  subject.  I  have  read  all  these  arguments  care- 
fully, and  with  a  sincere  desire  to  allow  them  the  full 
weight  to  which  they  are  entitled,  not  only  on  account 
of  the  high  sources  from  which  many  of  them  emanated, 
but  from  the  ability  and  force  with  which  the  subject  has 
been  treated. 

Having  performed  this  act  of  justice  to  the  claimants,  I 
felt  that  I  had  also  a  duty  to  discharge  to  the  public,  —  a 
duty  to  be  fulfilled  only  by  a  careful  examination  of  the 
official  documents  relating  to  the  case.  Those  documents 
are  contained  in  the  volume  I  hold  in  my  hand,  —  a  volume 
of  840  pages,  consisting  of  "  A  Message  from  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States,  transmitted  to  Congress  on  the 
£Oth  of  May,  18S6,  in  compliance  with  a  resolution 
of  the  Senate ;  with  copies  of  instructions  to  the  Ministers 
of  the  United  States  to  the  Government  of  France,  and 
of  the  correspondence  with  said  government,  having  ref- 
erence to  the  spoliations  committed  by  that  Power  on  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States  anterior  to  September  80, 
1800."  I  have  read  this  volume,  though  it  is  probable 
that,  in  the  examination  of  so  voluminous  a  mass  of  pa- 
pers, —  an  examination  constantly  interrupted  by  the  press- 
ure of  other  official  duties,  —  much  may  have  escaped  me 
which  I  ought  to  have  noticed ;  and  it  is  equally  probable 
that  I  may  not  have  drawn  from  the  parts  which  I  consider 
particularly  relevant  to  the  subject,  the  most  proper  conclu- 
sions in  all  cases.  But  it  has  been  my  aim  to  do  so ; 
and  if  I  have  erred  in  any  respect,  I  will  most  cheerfully 
correct  my  error  whenever  it  shall  be  clearly  pointed  out. 

1  Mr.  Webster. 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  63 

Thus  far,  I  have  not  read  a  single  argument  against  these 
claims,  either  in  the  form  of  a  speech  or  a  report ;  and  from 
the  best  examination  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  the  public 
documents  referred  to,  and  the  statement  of  their  own  case 
by  the  claimants  themselves,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  claims  do  not  constitute  a  just  demand  upon  the 
public  treasury.  I  will  proceed  to  state  the  reasons  for  this 
opinion. 

But,  first,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  an 
argument  which  has  been  adduced  in  their  support  by  the 
Senator  from  Delaware,  —  an  argument,  I  think,  best  an- 
swered by  a  reference  to  the  manner  in  which  the  subject 
was  disposed  of  for  examination  when  it  came  before  the 
Senate  soon  after  the  opening  of  the  present  session.  The 
argument  I  refer  to  is  this :  that  in  the  whole  course  of  the 
last  forty-four  years,  during  which  the  subject  has  been  be- 
fore Congress,  there  have  been  but  three  adverse  reports, 
while  the  favorable  reports  have  been  more  than  twenty. 
Now,  if  the  Senate  will  indulge  me,  I  will  recall  to  its  rec- 
ollection the  circumstances  under  which  the  reference  for 
examination  was  made.  Soon  after  the  session  commenced, 
I  presented  a  memorial,  signed  by  several  gentlemen  of 
the  city  of  New  York,  of  the  highest  respectability,  rep- 
resenting a  large  number  of  the  claimants,  and  moved  that 
it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  the 
committee  which  had,  for  a  series  of  years,  been  charged 
with  it.  The  reference  was  made.  But  the  Senator  from 
Maine,  on  my  left,^  immediately  rose  and  presented  a  similar 
memorial,  and  moved  that  it  be  referred  to  a  select  com- 
mittee on  the  distinct  ground  that  a  majority  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations  were  opposed  to  the  claims, 
and  that  the  application  should  be  referred  to  a  committee 
which  would  present  a  favorable  report.  It  was  also  urged 
in  favor  of  the  motion  of  the  Senator  from  Maine,  that  this 
was  a  claim,  and  that  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 

1  Mr.  Fairfield. 


1 


64  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 


was  not  an  appropriate  one ;  whereupon  a  Senator  from 
Mississippi  ^  moved  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Claims.  But  the  motion  was  voted  down,  for  reasons  which 
I  have  no  right  to  divine,  much  less  to  question.  The  mo- 
tion of  the  Senator  from  Maine  was  finally  sustained  by  the 
Senate ;  and  the  select  committee  was  very  properly  consti- 
tuted by  yourself,  Mr.  President,  according  to  the  parlia- 
mentary rule  that  select  committees  should  not  be  adverse  to 
the  subject  of  reference.  I  allude  to  the  circumstances  in 
order  to  repel  the  inference,  which  has  been  drawn  from  the 
greater  number  of  the  favorable  reports  on  these  claims  m 
years  past,  that  this  fact  constituted  an  argument  in  their 
favor.  I  cannot  so  regard  it ;  nor  do  I  think  it  can  be  so 
regarded  by  any  one  who  considers  the  circumstances  re- 
ferred to.  The  same  course  has  probably  been  pursued  in 
former  sessions  as  in  this.  When  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations  was  known  to  be  friendly  to  the  claims,  they 
would  naturally  be  referred  to  that  committee.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  the  committee  was  known  to  be  adverse,  a 
select  committee  would  be  appointed  for  the  express  purpose 
of  procuring  a  favorable  report.  Under  these  circumstances, 
it  seems  no  longer  remarkable  that  the  favorable  reports 
should  have  been  so  numerous.  One  fact  was  clear :  in  case 
the  application  had  been  permitted  to  go  to  the  appropriate 
standing  committee,  there  would,  if  his  friend  from  Maine  ^ 
was  right,  have  been  one  more  adverse  report.  On  the 
whole,  therefore,  I  apprehend  that  the  result  of  these  prelim- 
inary investigations  is  to  be  regarded  not  as  an  argument  in 
favor  of  the  justice  of  these  claims,  but  as  the  evidence  of  a 
deference  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  for  established  forms  and 
principles  of  parliamentary  proceeding.  If  it  were  other- 
wise, it  is  quite  manifest,  that,  by  the  device  of  sending  the 
application  to  a  standing  committee  when  that  committee 
was  known  to  be  favorable,  and  to  a  select  committee  when ' 
the  appropriate  standing  committee  was  known  to  be  ad- 

1  Mr.  Speight.  2  Mr.  Fairfield. 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  55 

verse,  the  merits  of  the  application,  according  to  this  test, 
would  every  year  become  more  apparent,  and  we  should 
ultimately  have  a  mass  of  evidence  in  their  favor  that  would 
be  irresistible.  And  here  I  will  leave  so  much  of  the  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  these  claims  as  is  founded  upon  the  numer- 
ical force  of  reports  of  committees. 

But  it  is  time  to  look  into  the  merits  of  the  application, 
and  I  will  do  so  in  the  briefest  manner  possible. 

The  most  ancient  treaties  to  be  found  on  our  statute-book 
are  a  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  and  a  treaty  of  alliance, 
(I  name  them  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  concluded,) 
between  the  United  States  and  France ;  or,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  the  treaties,  between  the  United  States  and  his 
most  Christian  Majesty.  They  were  executed  on  the  6th  of 
February,  1778,  and  they  preceded  by  a  few  months  the 
earliest  treaty  on  record  between  us  and  any  of  the  Indian 
tribes  on  this  continent.  The  dissolution  of  the  political  con- 
nection between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  had 
been  formally  proclaimed  to  the  world  nineteen  months  be- 
fore ;  we  were  engaged  in  a  determined  struggle  to  main- 
tain the  independent  attitude  we  had  thus  taken;  and  France, 
by  the  treaty  of  alliance  referred  to,  soon  became  a  party  to 
the  contest.  I  say  she  soon  became  a  party  to  the  contest, 
because  the  treaty  of  alliance  was  not  designed  to  be  carried 
immediately  into  full  effect.  It  was  in  its  main  stipulations 
conditional,  eventual,  prospective;  —  conditional,  on  the  event 
of  a  rupture  between  France  and  Great  Britain ;  or,  if  such 
a  rupture  should  not  take  place,  then  on  the  termination  of 
the  war  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  It 
was  not  designed  to  be  made  public;  and  when  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  "  in  a  moment  of  exultation,"  as  Mar- 
shall, in  his  "  Life  of  Washington,"  says,  pubhshed  it  with 
the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  which  was  an  open  treaty, 
the  publication  was  not  approved  by  the  Cabinet  of  Ver- 
sailles; and  he  adds,  "that  treaty,  being  only  eventual,  ought 
not  to  have  been  communicated  to  the  public  but  by  mutual 


QQ  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

consent."^  But  the  condition  on  which  it  depended  was  soon 
fulfilled,  and  France  became  involved  in  our  contest  for  inde- 
pendence. Of  the  valuable  assistance  which  she  rendered 
us,  it  is  needless  to  speak.  This  portion  of  our  history  is  not 
hkely  to  be  effaced  from  our  memory,  nor,  I  trust,  from  the 
memory  of  our  descendants ;  and  especially  all  that  concerns 
the  gallant  Frenchmen,  who,  like  Lafayette,  periled  their 
lives  and  fortunes  in  our  cause.  I  believe  there  was  then, 
as  now,  a  strong  chord  of  sympathy  between  the  people  of 
the  two  countries,  which  I  hope  may  never  be  broken.  But 
it  is  due  to  the  impartiality  of  history  to  say,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  France  was  not  so  clearly  actuated  by  the  purely 
disinterested  motives  which  have  been  ascribed  to  her.  The 
whole  history  of  our  negotiations  with  her  in  1777  shows 
that  she  had  her  own  interest  in  view  in  the  part  she  took  in 
our  struggle  for  independence,  and  that  the  encouragement 
she  gave  us  in  the  early  stages  of  that  contest  varied  with 
the  varying  phases  of  our  fortune.  But  disinterestedness 
and  generosity,  I  apprehend,  are  not  the  virtues  of  govern- 
ments. They  are  peculiarly  and  eminently  attributes  of  in- 
dividual character.  They  are  not  even  the  virtues  of  men 
in  their  associated  state;  and  in  the  intercourse  of  nations 
they  dwindle  to  mere  names.  I  believe  the  highest  qualities 
to  be  looked  for  in  the  communications  of  governments  with 
each  other,  are  justice  and  courtesy. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  has  referred  to  the  epoch  of 
these  treaties  as  "  the  darkest  hour  in  our  whole  Revolution- 
ary struggle."  I  have  not  been  accustomed  so  to  consider  it. 
They  were  concluded  immediately  after  the  campaign  of 
1777*  I  have  always  regarded  this  as  the  great  campaign 
of  the  war,  and  the  period  which  succeeded,  notwithstand- 
ing the  embarrassments  and  sufferings  it  brought,  as  one  of 
strong  confidence  in  the  ultimate  success  of  the  contest  for 
independence.  The  Senator,  has  drawn  a  striking  picture  of 
the  privations  and  sufferings  endured  by  the  American  army 

1  Vol.  I.  p.  287. 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  Qn 

at  Valley  Forge ;  and  I  will  not  say  that  it  is  over-colored. 
But  as  a  picture  of  the  epoch,  it  seems  to  me  incomplete.  I 
certainly  think  the  Senator  has  thrown  in  all  the  shadows, 
and  left  out  all  the  lights  —  nay,  I  will  say,  the  brilliant 
colors  —  which  equally  belong  to  a  true  picture  of  that 
period.  I  will,  with  the  permission  of  my  honorable  friend 
from  Delaware,  borrow  his  canvas,  and  add  what  I  consider 
the  omitted  parts.  The  Senator  from  Delaware  commenced 
his  sketch  with  the  battle  of  Brandywine,  which  was  fought 
on  the  11th  of  September.  I  will  only  go  about  four  weeks 
farther  back.  I  will  commence  with  the  16th  of  August, 
when  Colonel  Baum  was  defeated  at  Bennington  by  Stark. 
Colonel  St.  Leger,  with  his  Indian  allies,  was  driven  from 
Fort  Stanwix  and  the  Valley  of  the  Mohawk  on  the  £Sd 
August,  after  the  bloody  battle  of  Oriskany.  Burgoyne, 
on  the.  18th  October,  —  more  than  a  month  after  the  battle 
of  Brandywine,  —  surrendered  at  Saratoga,  with  one  of  the 
best-appointed  armies  Great  Britain  ever  had  on  this  con- 
tinent ;  and  an  American  historian  has  denominated  his  sur- 
render "the  hinge  on  which  the  Revolution  turned."  Sir 
Henry  Clinton  had  failed  in  his  attempt  to  cooperate  with 
the  army  of  Burgoyne  by  the  Hudson  River,  and  had  re- 
turned to  the  city  of  New  York;  and  Washington,  though 
laboring  under  the  greatest  disadvantages,  with  an  army 
vastly  inferior  in  numbers  to  that  of  his  adversary,  and  ill- 
provided  with  the  munitions  of  war,  had,  by  a  series  of 
masterly  movements  and  well-contested  engagements,  neu- 
tralized, to  a  considerable  extent,  the  operations  of  General 
Howe  in  the  Middle  States.  The  British  general  had  suc- 
ceeded in  occupying  Philadelphia,  and  made  it  his  winter- 
quarters  ;  but  when  the  intelligence  reached  Paris,  Dr. 
FrankUn  said,  (and  the  saying,  I  believe,  became  a  by- 
word on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,)  that  Philadelphia  had 
taken  General  Howe.  History  had  pronounced  the  opera- 
tions of  that  general  barren  victories ;  and  these  were  almost 
the  only  shadows  on  the  face  of  the  campaign.     Nearly 


58  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

everywhere  else  fortune  had  sided  with  the  Americans. 
The  campaign  was,  with  these  and  some  other  trifling  ex- 
ceptions, a  series  of  successes,  —  decided,  marked,  brilliant 
successes.  They  electrified  the  friends  of  the  Revolution  at 
home  and  abroad,  as  the  intelligence  of  the  alliance  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  according  to  the  eloquent 
description  of  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  electrified  the 
army  of  Washington.  The  United  States,  alone  and  almost 
unaided,  had  achieved  these  great  successes,  and  they  had 
placed  the  establishment  of  their  independence,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  world,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  It  was  at  this 
juncture  that  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  and  the 
treaty  of  alliance,  were  concluded  between  France  and  the 
United  States.  She  came  to  our  aid,  not  because  she 
thought  us  in  the  depths  of  distress,  but  in  the  hour  of  vic- 
tory, when  our  triumph  seemed  no  longer  doubtful ;  and 
unless  the  testimony  of  all  history  is  to  be  discarded,  these 
treaties,  but  for  the  successes  of  17775  might  never  have 
been  formed.  I  do  not  say  this  for  the  purpose  of  with- 
holding from  the  Government  of  France  any  merit  which 
may  justly  be  claimed  for  it  in  siding  with  us.  It  was 
doubtless  actuated  by  an  enlightened  view  of  the  interest  of 
that  kingdom ;  and  it  would  have  been  too  much  to  expect 
it  to  take  part  with  us  in  a  matter  so  grave  as  that  of  a 
dissension  between  the  colonies  of  a  European  power  and 
the  parent  State,  until  it  was  quite  manifest  that  the  resist- 
ance would  be  successful. 

These  treaties  have  become  connected  with  the  claims 
under  consideration,  and  the  claimants  would  have  us  be- 
lieve inseparably  connected  with  them.  I  differ  totally  with 
them  in  opinion ;  and  in  order  to  explain  the  difference  be- 
tween us,  it  will  be  necessary  to  advert  to  the  nature  of  the 
treaties,  between  which  and  the  claims  before  us  this  con- 
nection is  supposed  to  exist. 

The  treaties  were  designed,  as  their  titles  import,  to  es-  i 
tablish  and  regulate  commercial  relations  between  the  two 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  QQ 

countries,  and  to  form  an  alliance  for  purposes  of  defence. 
The  essential  object  of  the  treaty  of  alliance  was  to  maintain 
the  independence  of  the  United  States.  Its  stipulations 
were  not  limited  to  the  contest  then  in  progress.  They  were 
only  to  take  full  effect  on  the  contingency  I  have  already 
referred  to.  They  were  designed  to  extend  far  beyond  that 
contest.  They  expressly  guaranteed  forever,  on  the  part  of 
France,  the  liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence  of  the 
United  States  in  government  and  commerce ;  and  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  the  possessions  of  the  crown  of 
France  in  America.  The  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  alli- 
ance were  reciprocal,  creating  mutual  advantages,  and  hold- 
ing out  the  promise  of  reciprocal  aid.  The  treaty  of  amity 
and  commerce  was  of  the  same  character,  embracing  common 
provisions  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the  contracting  parties. 
I  desire  to  state  thus  distinctly  the  nature  of  these  treaties, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  kept  steadily  in  view  in  the  sequel. 
In  the  language  of  an  American  historian,  they  placed  the 
two  countries  "on  the  footing  of  the  most  perfect  equality 
and  reciprocity";  —  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  by 
conferring  reciprocal  commercial  advantages,  and  the  treaty 
of  alliance,  by  rendering  the  establishment  of  our  indepen- 
dence more  easy  and  certain,  by  the  expulsion  of  Great  Brit- 
ain from  a  large  portion  of  this  continent,  diminishing  the 
strength  of  a  dangerous  rival  of  France,  and  opening  a  new 
and  vast  field  to  her  commerce  and  a  valuable  market  for  the 
products  of  her  industry.  The  amicable  relations  thus  estab- 
lished between  the  United  States  and  France  survived  the 
war  of  the  Revolution,  and  continued  uninterrupted  until 
1793.  On  the  S8th  of  January  of  that  year,  France  de- 
clared war  against  Great  Britain,  and  both  these  powers 
were  soon  engaged  in  a  series  of  unprovoked  and  unwarrant- 
able depredations  on  our  commerce.  As  early  as  the  9th  of 
May,  but  little  more  than  three  months  after  the  declaration 
of  hostilities,  France,  by  a  decree  of  her  National  Conven- 
tion, under  the  pretext  that  Great  Britain  had  seized  our 


70 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


vessels  laden  with  provisions  and  carried  them  into  her 
ports,  taking  the  provisions  for  her  own  use  at  her  own 
price,  and  committed  other  violations  of  neutral  rights,  for- 
mally declared  that  the  French  people  were  "  no  longer  per- 
mitted to  fulfil,  towards  the  neutral  powers  in  general,  the 
vows  [wishes]  they  have  so  often  manifested  for  the  full  and 
entire  liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation." — I  refer  to  page 
48  of  Senate  Document  No.  102,  19th  Congress,  1st  Session; 
and  all  my  references,  unless  otherwise  expressed,  will  be  to 
this  volume.  —  The  decree  then  authorized  French  ships  of 
war  to  arrest  and  carry  into  the  ports  of  the  Republic  neu- 
tral vessels,  laden  wholly  or  in  part  either  with  articles  of 
provisions  belonging  to  neutral  nations  and  destined  to  an 
enemy's  port,  or  with  merchandises  belonging  to  an  enemy  ; 
the  merchandises  to  be  confiscated,  and  the  provisions  to  be 
paid  for  according  to  their  value  in  the  place  to  which  they 
were  destined.  On  the  remonstrance  of  the  Minister  of  the 
United  States,  complaining  of  the  decree  as  a  violation  of  jus- 
tice and  good  faith  in  respect  to  vessels  of  the  United  States, 
(pages  41  and  44,)  this  decree  was  declared,  on  the  28d  of 
May,  not  to  be  applicable  to  them.  On  the  £8th  of  the 
same  month  it  was  again  made  applicable  to  them,  so  far  as 
to  place  in  a  state  of  provisional  sequestration  property  seized 
under  the  decree  of  the  9th  (page  46).  On  the  1st  of  July, 
vessels  of  the  United  States  were  again  exempted  from  its 
operation  (page  50);  and  on  the  S7th  of  July,  it  was  again 
applied  (pages  50  and  161);  and  I  do  not  find  that  it  Was 
ever  afterwards  removed. 

When  this  decree  was  made,  France,  by  the  treaty  of 
amity  and  commerce  with  the  United  States,  which  was 
still  in  force,  had  stipulated  that  free  ships  should  make 
free  goods,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  property  of  an 
enemy  in  the  ship  of  a  friend  should  be  exempt  from 
seizure  and  confiscation.  She  had"  also  specified  by  the 
same  treaty  the  articles  which  should  be  treated  as  con- 
traband of  war,  and  liable  to  seizure  when    bound    to    an 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS. 


71 


enemy's  port;  and  from  this  specification  provisions  were 
expressly  excluded.  I  will  not  say  that  I  regard  the 
seizure  of  provisions,  with  the  promise  of  payment,  equiv- 
alent to  treating  them  as  contraband ;  but,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  other  parts  of  the  decree,  I  consider  the 
conduct  of  France  an  open  and  palpable  repudiation  of 
the  treaty  of  177^  >  and  it  was  subsequently  followed  by 
more  flagrant  violations  of  her  engagements.  The  vessels 
of  the  United  States  were  seized,  detained,  condemned, 
and  confiscated,  under  the  most  unjustifiable  pretexts,  until 
in  July,  1796,  (page  14'9,)  she  proclaimed,  by  a  resolve 
of  her  Executive  Directory,  the  principle  of  treating  neutral 
vessels,  as  to  confiscations,  searches,  and  captures,  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  English  were  allowed  to  treat  them. 
The  practical  effect  of  this  doctrine  was,  to  make  the 
example  of  Great  Britain  her  own  guide  and  her  justifica- 
tion in  depredations  on  our  commerce.  The  infraction  of 
the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with  us,  under  the  decree 
of  the  9th  of  May,  preceded  any  act,  or  certainly  the  knowl- 
edge by  France  of  any  act,  on  our  part  in  respect  to  the 
belligerents,  to  which  she  could  take  exception.  It  was 
equally  unprovoked  and  unjustifiable. 

On  the  22d  of  April,  1793,  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  General  Washington,  issued  his  celebrated  Procla- 
mation of  Neutrality,  (page  £48,)  the  chief  object  of  which 
was,  to  advise  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  that  we 
were  at  peace  with  the  belligerents,  to  warn  them  against 
committhig  acts  of  hostility,  and  to  point  out  the  risks  they 
would  incur  by  carrying  contraband  articles  to  the  ports 
of  either.  On  the  very  day  this  proclamation  was  issued, 
the  Government  was  informed  that  Citizen  Genet,  as  Min- 
ister from  France,  had  landed  at  Charleston,  (page  54,) 
and  shortly  afterwards  that  he  was  engaged  in  fitting  out 
privateers  to  cruise  against  British  vessels.  He  claimed 
this  right  by  virtue  of  the  ££d  article  of  the  Treaty  of 
Amity  and  Commerce,  which  denied  to  foreign  privateers. 


72 


SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 


under  commissions  from  powers  at  war  with  France  or 
the  United  States,  the  right  to  fit  out  ships  in  the  ports 
of  either;  alleging  that  this  denial  of  a  right  to  others 
was  a  virtual  concession  of  it  to  France.  This  interpre- 
tation of  the  article  was  uniformly  denied,  and  all  attempts 
to  give  it  effect  resisted  by  the  United  States.  The 
article  is  in  these  words :  — 

"  Art.  22.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  .for  any  foreign  privateers  not 
belonging  to  subjects  of  the  Most  Christian  King,  nor  citizens  of  the 
said  United  States,  who  have  commissions  from  any  other  Prince  or 
State  in  enmity  with  either  nation,  to  fit  their  ships  in  the  ports  of 
either  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  aforesaid  parties,  to  sell  what  they 
have  taken,  or  in  any  other  manner  to  exchange  their  ships,  merchan- 
dises, or  any  other  lading ;  neither  shall  they  be  allowed  even  to  pur- 
chase victuals,  except  such  as  shall  be  necessary  for  their  going  to  the 
next  port  of  that  Prince  or  State  from  which  they  have  commissions." 

Citizen  Genet  also  claimed,  under  the  8th  article  of 
a  convention  between  the  United  States  and  France,  ex- 
ecuted in  November,  17^8,  defining  the  duties  and  privi- 
leges of  consuls,  the  exclusive  right  of  deciding,  through 
the  consulates  established  by  France  in  the  United  States, 
whether  vessels  taken  by  her  cruisers  were  lawful  prize 
or  not.  This  was  virtually  claiming  for  the  French  con- 
sulates the  powers  of  courts  of  admiralty  to  be  exercised 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  This  assump- 
tion was  also  denied  by  us.  We  did  not  claim  the  right 
of  trying  in  our  courts  the  vaHdity  of  captures  made  on 
the  high  seas  by  France ;  but  we  denied  the  right  of  France 
to  determine .  such  questions  within  the  United  States,  in- 
sisting that  they  belonged  to  the  sovereign  of  the  captor, 
and  that  resort  must  be  had  to  his  courts.  We  did,  how- 
ever, claim  that  the  United  States  were  bound  to  protect 
vessels  within  their  own  waters ;  and  where  captures  were 
made  by  French  cruisers  within  our  jurisdiction,  that  it 
belonged  to  the  United  States  to  punish  these  violations 
of  our  sovereignty,  and  to  restore  the  property  thus  ille- 
gally captured.     The  cogency  of  this  reasoning  will  be  best 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS. 


73 


understood  from  an  examination  of  the  article,  which  is  as 
follows :  — 

"  Art.  8.  The  consuls  or  vice-consuls  shall  exercise  police  over  all 
the  vessels  of  their  respective  nations,  and  shall  have  on  board  the  said 
vessels  all  power  and  jurisdiction  in  civil  matters,  in  all  the  disputes 
which  may  there  arise ;  they  shall  have  an  entire  inspection  over  the 
said  vessels,  their  crew,  and  the  changes  and  substitutions  there  to  be 
made.  For  which  purpose  they  may  go  on  board  the  said  vessels 
whenever  they  may  judge  it  necessary.  Well  understood  that  the  func- 
tions hereby  allowed  shall  be  confined  to  the  interior  of  the  vessels, 
and  that  they  shall  not  take  place  in  any  case  which  shall  have  any  in- 
terference with  the  police  of  the  ports  where  the  said  vessels  shall  be." 

Another  claim  on  the  part  of  Citizen  Genet  was,  that 
the  17th  article  of  the  treaty  gave  the  armed  vessels  of 
France  the  privilege  of  sending  their  prizes  into  the  United 
States,  and  selling  them  free  of  duty,  though,  as  Mr. 
Jefferson  said,  the  privilege  of  selling  prizes  in  the  United 
States  was  not  given  at  all.  But  the  whole  groundwork 
of  the  claim  was  shown  by  Mr.  Jefferson  to  be  unten- 
able, by  asserting  and  maintaining  the  construction  that 
the  17th  article  was  intended  only  to  confer  the  right  of 
sending  their  prizes,  in  the  first  instance,  wheresoever  they 
pleased,  without  paying  duty,  and  of  departing  to  some 
other  place  named  in  their  commissions  within  the  juris- 
diction of  their  sovereign,  where  the  validity  of  the  capture 
was  to  be  finally  adjudged.  The  article  is  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  — 

"  Art.  17.  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  ships  of  war  of  either  party, 
and  privateers,  freely  to  carry  whithersoever  they  please  the  ships  and 
goods  taken  from  their  enemies,  without  being  obliged  to  pay  any  duty^ 
to  the  officers  of  the  admiralty  or  any  other  judges ;  nor  shall  such 
prizes  be  arrested  or  seized  when  they  come  to  or  enter  the  ports  of 
either  party ;  nor  shall  the  searchers  or  other  officers  of  those  places 
search  the  same,  or  make  examination  concerning  the  lawfulness  of 
such  prizes ;  but  they  may  hoist  sail  at  any  time,  and  depart  and  carry 
their  prizes  to  the  places  expressed  in  their  commissions,  which  the 
commanders  of  such  ships  of  war  shall  be  obliged  to  show ;  on  the  con- 
trary, no  shelter  or  refuge  shall  be  given  in  their  ports  to  such  as  shall 
have  made  prize  of  the  subjects,  people,  or  property  of  either  of  the 
10 


74 


SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 


parties ;  but  if  such  shall  come  in,  being  forced  by  stress  of  weather, 
or  the  danger  of  the  sea,  all  proper  means  shall  be  vigorously  used, 
that  they  go  out  and  retire  from  thence  as  soon  as  possible." 

Citizen  Genet  also  complained,  that,  by  the  adoption  of 
the  principle  that  free  ships  make  free  goods,  in  the  treaty 
of  1778,  France  could  not  take  out  of  vessels  of  the 
United  States  property  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  Great 
Britain,  then  her  enemy ;  while  the  commercial  intercourse 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  being  reg- 
ulated by  no  such  treaty-stipulation,  but  being  subject  to 
the  rule  of  international  law,  as  it  was  understood  at  the 
time,  that  enemy's  property  may  be  taken  in  a  neutral 
bottom.  Great  Britain  might  take  out  of  vessels  of  the 
United  States  property  belonging  to  the  citizens  of  France ; 
and  he  insisted  that  we  were  bound  to  prevent  it.  Mr. 
Jefferson  replied,  by  asserting  the  principle  of  the  law  of 
nations  as  before  stated,  and  insisting  that  the  inconven- 
ience to  France,  if  there  was  any,  resulted  from  the  fact 
that  the  treaty-stipulation  between  her  and  the  United 
States  was  an  exception  to  the  rule,  and  that  she  had  no 
iust  cause  to  complain  of  an  agreement  to  which  she  had 
voluntarily  consented. 

I  refer  to  these  complaints  of  Citizen  Genet  as  the 
earliest  evidences  of  the  dissatisfaction  with  which  France 
regarded  the  position  of  neutrality  taken  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  She  complained  of  us  as  hav- 
ing violated  the  engagements  into  which  we  had  entered 
by  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  made  our  refusal  to  comply 
with  her  requisitions  the  pretext  for  her  depredations  on 
our  commerce.  But  we  have  seen  that  the  first  infrac- 
tion of  those  treaties  was  committed  by  herself,  through 
the  decree  of  the  9th  of  May,  1793,  before  she  knew  we 
had  taken  such  a  positron  of  neutrality;  and  I  believe  it 
to  be  difficult  for  any  one,  who  examines  carefully  the 
able  expositions  made  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph, of  our   obligations  arising  under   those  treaties,  to 


\ 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS. 


75 


charge  us  with  any  violation  of  our  engagements.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  spoliations  committed  by  France  on 
our  commerce  were  in  open  and  palpable  violation  of  the 
stipulations  of  the  treaty,  —  so  much  so,  that  she  did  not 
always  even  pretend  to  excuse  them,  except  by  the  pre- 
text of  her  necessities. 

I  will  not  detain  the  Senate  by  entering  into  a  detail 
of  these  aggressions,  perpetrated  at  last  without  even  a 
color  of  justification,  and  in  disregard  of  the  most  per- 
severing and  earnest  remonstrances  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States.  It  suffices  to  say,  that  they  commenced 
in  1793,  and  continued,  with  occasional  intermissions,  till 
1800.  During  much  of  this  period,  France,  it  is  true, 
protested  that  she  had  no  unfriendly  designs  in  respect  to 
the  United  States,  and  that  she  was  willing  to  make  rep- 
aration where  it  wa»s  justly  due.  But  these  protestations, 
instead  of  palliating  her  conduct,  served  but  to  aggravate 
and  give  point  to  her  depredations.  I  desire  to  say,  in 
reference  to  all  these  aggressions,  that  they  were  com- 
mitted during  a  period  of  political  agitation  in  France, 
which  shook  the  fabric  of  society  to  its  foundation,  and 
that  they  are  to  be  regarded,  in  some  degree,  as  the  fruit 
of  the  disturbed  order  of  things  under  which  they  occurred. 

The  treaty  of  November,  1794',  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  (commonly  called  Jay's  Treaty,) 
gave  new  offence  to  France.  She  complained  that  we 
had  abandoned  in  that  treaty  the  principle  that  free  ships 
make  free  goods ;  that,  in  the  stipulations  relating  to  con- 
traband of  war,  a  rule  had  been  adopted  different  from 
that  contained  in  our  treaty  of  177^?  with  her  ;  and  that 
we  had  thus  violated  the  principles  of  reciprocity,  which 
we  were  bound  to  observe  towards  her.  The  answer 
to  this  complaint  was,  that  in  this  treaty  we  had  adopted, 
in  the  two  particulars  referred  to,  the  rules  of  law  rec- 
ognized by  civilized  States  ;  and  that  we  had  specially 
stipulated  that  nothing  contained  in  it  should  be  construed 


r^Q  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

to  impair  our  obligations  to  other  Powers  under  preexist- 
ing treaties. 

On  the  11th  of  December,  1796,  Mr.  Monroe,  our 
Minister  to  France,  after  presenting  his  letter  of  recall, 
and  the  credentials  of  his  successor,  Mr.  Charles  Cotes- 
wdrth  Pinckney,  to  the  Executive  Directory,  was  noti- 
fied that  the  Directory  would  "no  longer  recognize  nor 
receive  a  minister  plenipotentiary  from  the  United  States, 
until  after  a  reparation  of  the  grievances  demanded  of  the 
American  Government,  and  which  the  French  Republic 
has  a  right  to  expect."     (Page  150.) 

On  the  11th  February,  1797?  two  months  afterwards,  the 
Secretary  of  S>tate  of  the  United  States  wrote  to  Mr. 
Pinckney,  who  was  then  in  x\msterdam,  not  being  permitted 
to  reside  in  France,  (pages  158  and  159,)  that  the  spolia- 
tions on  our  commerce  by  French  cruisers  were  daily  in- 
creasing; that  every  just  principle  was  set  at  defiance;  that, 
"  if  their  acts  were  simply  the  violation  of  our  treaty  with 
France,  the  injuries  would  be  comparatively  trifling;  but 
their  outrages  extend  to  the  capture  of  our  vessels,  merely 
because  going  to  or  from  a  British  port ;  nay,  more,  they 
take  them  when  going  from  a  neutral  to  a  French  port." 
(Page  154.) 

By  a  decree  of  the  Executive  Directory,  dated  March  £, 
1797?  (pag6  160,)  a  series  of  orders  was  adopted,  by  which 
the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  177^?  between  France 
and  the  United  States,  was  virtually  abrogated  in  all  the 
leading  particulars  which  had  constituted  the  groundwork  of 
her  complaints  against  the  United  States.  She  annulled  the 
agreement  that  free  ships  should  make  free  goods,  by  declar- 
ing enemy's  property  in  neutral  vessels  lawful  prize.  She 
annulled  the  stipulation  that  certain  articles  only  should  be 
contraband,  by  adding  new  ones  to  the  list.  And  in  other 
particulars  she  either  annulled  express  stipulations  in  the 
treaty  of  177^?  or  introduced  new  rules  entirely  subversive 
of  them.     Among  other  innovations  was  that  of  requiring 


FEENCH   SPOLIATIONS. 


77 


what  she  denominated  a  role  cV equipage^  or  crew's  list, 
agreeably  to  an  ordinance,  nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  ancient  as 
the  marine  ordinances  of  Louis  XIV.,  issued  in  1681.  In 
default  of  such  a  list  a  vessel  was  declared  to  be  a  good 
prize. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  these  orders  were  issued  the 
day  before  General  Washington's  term  of  office,  as  President 
of  the  United  States,  expired.  He  had  occupied  that  high 
station  during  the  whole  period  of  our  difficulties  with 
France.  He  was  responsible  for  all  the  acts  of  our  govern- 
ment towards  her  down  to  that  period  of  time ;  and  in  the 
early  stages  of  our  dissensions  with  her,  Mr.  Jefferson  had 
filled  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  and  had  given  to  the 
treaties  of  177^  the  interpretations  of  which  she  complained 
as  a  violation  of  our  engagements  with  her,  and  as  a  justifica- 
tion of  her  aggressions  upon  us.  I  will  certainly  not  assume 
that  the  course  of  our  government  was  right  merely  because 
it  was  directed  by  these  distinguished  statesmen  and  patriots; 
but  the  fact  that  they  had  so  large  a  share  in  the  transactions 
of  that  day  is  sufficient  to  make  me  hesitate  long  before  I 
will  call  in  question  the  wisdom  or  justice  of  the  public 
measures,  in  respect  to  our  difficulties  with  France,  at  a 
period  so  remote  from  our  own  times.  And  I  cannot 
overlook  the  consideration,  that,  if  there  was  any  injustice, 
any  ingratitude,  any  breach  of  good  faith,  any  violation  of 
treaties  with  France,  down  to  this  period  of  time,  when  our 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  her  was  suspended,  Washington, 
the  upright  President  and  the  friend  of  Lafayette,  was 
responsible  for  it. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  has  cited,  with  great  empha- 
sis, a  circular  letter  of  Mr.  Jeffierson,  as  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  charging  on  our 
government  the  obligation  of  paying  the  indemnities  claimed 
for  spoliations.  I  think  this  letter  will  be  found,  on  exami- 
nation, neither  to  have  been  extraordinary  as  a  public  act,  nor 
to  have  created  any  liability  on  the  part  of  the  government, 


^8  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

which  was  not  fully  discharged.  The  letter  was  written  on 
the  £7th  August,  1793,  and  will  be  found  at  page  216.  It 
began  by  stating,  that,  "  complaint  having  been  made  to  the 
government  of  the  United  States  of  some  instances  of  unjus- 
tifiable vexation  and  spoliation  committed  on  our  merchant- 
vessels  by  the  privateers  of  the  Powers  at  war,  and  it  being 
possible  that  other  instances  may  have  happened  of  which  no 
information  has  been  given  to  the  government,"  he  had  it 
in  charge  to  say,  that  "due  attention  would  be  paid  to  any 
injuries  they  might  suffer;  and  that,  on  their  forwarding 
well-authenticated  evidence  of  the  same,  proper  proceedings 
would  be  adopted  for  their  relief."  And  it  added  the  ex- 
pression of  the  confidence  of  the  government  in  the  just  and 
friendly  dispositions  of  the  belligerent  powers. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  there  were  at  the  time  numer- 
ous complaints ;  and  the  government  not  being  able  with 
convenience  to  correspond  with  all  the  complainants,  probably 
adopted  this  method  of  inviting  them  to  present  the  evidence 
of  their  injuries,  that  redress  might  be  sought  through  the 
customary  channels  of  diplomatic  intercourse ;  and  it  held 
out  the  same  assurance  of  aid  in  cases  of  future  wrong.  It 
looked  not  merely  to  the  future,  but  to  the  past  also. 

By  referring  to  page  258,  ;it  will  be  seen  that  President 
Washington,  in  his  Annual  Message  in  December,  1793, 
referred  to  this  circular  in  the  following  terms :  — 

"  The  vexations  and  spoliations  .understood  to  have  been  committed 
on  our  vessels  and  commerce  by  the  cruisers  and  officers  of  some  of 
the  belligerent  Powers  appeared  to  require  attention.  The  proofs  of 
these,  however,  not  having  been  brought  forward,  the  description  of  cit- 
izens supposed  to  have  suffered  were  notified,  that,  on  furnishing  them 
to  the  Executive,  due  measures  would  be  taken  to  obtain  redress  of  the 
past,  and  more  effectual  provisions  against  the  future." 

These  assurances,  as  we  shall  see,  were  redeemed  by  the 
government  to  the  extent  of  its  ability.  .  They  were  given 
under  a  generous  confidence  in  the  justice  of  the  belligerents. 
The  government  was  justified  in  entertaining  this  confidence, 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS. 


79 


at  least  in  respect  to  France.  On  the  £7th  of  September, 
1793,  a  month  after  the  circular  was  written,  Citizen  Genet 
(page  226)  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  giving  him  the 
strongest  assurances  of  the  friendly  disposition  of  the 
French  government,  and  informing  him  that  the  decree  of 
the  9th  of  May  had  been  modified  by  an  exception  in  favor 
of  American  commerce,  although  at  this  time  the  decree  of 
the  27th  July,  reviving  that  of  the  9th  of  May,  had  been  in 
force  two  months. 

Our  confidence  was  abused,  but  the  government  will 
surely  not  be  held  responsible  for  the  bad  faith  of  foreign 
powers.  The  whole  extent  of  its  responsibility,  under  this 
circular,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  designed  chiefly  to 
notify  the  merchants  to  present  evidence  of  their  claims  to 
indemnity,  was  that  of  seeking  the  redress  of  the  injuries 
complained  of  in  every  just  mode;  and  this  responsibiHty,  as 
I  shall  show  hereafter,  was  met  and  discharged. 

I  desire  to  impress  the  fact  on  the  Senate,  that,  as  early 
as  1793,  the  treaty  of  177^  was  virtually  annulled  and  abro- 
gated by  France.  It  was  so  in  1797)  ^s  far  as  it  could  be 
by  her  own  act.  It  required  only  the  act  of  the  other  con- 
tracting party  to  work  a  complete  abrogation  of  it ;  and,  as 
we  shall  see,  this  act  was  not  long  wanting. 

I  also  desire  to  note  here  that  the  decree  of  the  Sd  of. 
March,  1797)  was  characterized  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  that  year,  "  as  a  palpable  violation  of  our  treaty  with 
France,  which  the  Directory,  without  our  participation,  nn- 
dertook  to  modify,  professedly  to  make  it  conform  to  our 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,"  (page  406  ;  see,  also,  page  168.) 
And,  in  his  Message  to  Congress  in  December,  1798,  the 
President  denounced  another  law  of  France,  (pages  375- 
3770  passed  in  January  of  that  year,  in  relation  to  the  cap- 
ture and  condemnation  of  neutral  vessels,  "  as  an  unequivo- 
cal act  of  war  on  the  commerce  of  the  nations  it  attacks," 
(page  429.) 

Having  thus  shown  that  France  had  avowedly  assumed  to 


80  SPEECHES  IN  IHE  SENATE. 

modify  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  177^5  so  far  as 
she  held  that  it  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  stipulations 
of  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  and  that  she  had  virtually 
abrogated  it  by  an  utter  disregard  of  her  engagements  with 
us,  I  will  now  proceed  to  show  by  what  measures  her  viola- 
tion of  the  treaty  was  met  on  our  part.  I  shall  not  trouble 
the  Senate  with  a  detail  of  all  the  acts  passed  by  Congress  to 
meet  the  extraordinary  emergency  produced  by  the  legisla- 
tion of  France,  but  shall  merely  refer  to  the  general  tenor  of 
the  most  important.  A  series  of  such  laws  will  be  found, 
commencing  on  the  S8th  of  May,  1798,  and  ending  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1800.  By  an  act  of  28th  May,  1798,  the  capture  of 
the  armed  vessels  of  France,  found  hovering  on  our  coasts  for 
the  purpose  of  committing  depredations  on  our  vessels,  was 
authorized ;  by  an  act  of  18th  June,  1798,  the  commercial 
intercourse  between  France  and  the  United  States  was  sus- 
pended ;  by  an  act  of  25th.  June,  1798,  the  merchant-ves- 
sels of  the  United  States  were  authorized  to  arm,  to  repel 
by  force  any  attempt  by  French  cruisers  to  search,  restrain, 
or  seize  them,  to  subdue  and  capture  such  cruisers,  and  to 
recapture  any  vessels  of  the  United  States  which  such  cruis- 
ers may  have  taken ;  by  an  act  of  28th  June,  1798,  the 
forfeiture,  condemnation,  and  sale  of  captured  vessels,  and 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds,  were  provided  for,  as  well 
those  captured  by  vessels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States  as  by  our  public  armed  vessels ;  by  an  act  of  9th 
July,  1798,  the  public  armed  vessels  of  the  United  States 
were  authorized  to  capture  on  the  high  seas  any  armed 
French  vessel ;  and  the  President  was  authorized  to  grant 
commissions  to  private  armed  vessels,  with  the  same  author- 
ity to  subdue,  seize,  and  capture  any  armed  French  vessel,  as 
the  public  armed  vessels  of  the  United  States  possessed. 

To  crown  these  acts  of  upen  hostility,  the  United  States 
were,  by  an  act  of  Congress  of  the  7th  July,  1798,  declared 
to  be  of  right  freed  and  exonerated  from  the  stipulations  of 
the  treaties  and  of  the  Consular  Convention,  "  heretofore  " 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS.  81 

—  I  quote  the  language  of  the  act  —  "  concluded  between 
the  United  States  and  France."  These  were  the  treaty  of 
alliance  and  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  February, 
177^?  ^"^  the  Consular  Convention  of  November,  I788. 
On  referring  to  the  act  of  the  7^^^  J"ly?  1798,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  declaration  of  our  government,  that  we  were 
freed  from  the  stipulations  of  the  treaties,  was  put  upon  the 
distinct  ground  of  theif  infraction  by  France. 

I  will  not  argue  the  question  whether  a  nation,  bound  to 
another  by  treaty-stipulations,  has,  under  circumstances  like 
those  in  which  the  United  States  were  placed,  the  right  to 
declare  those  stipulations  void.  Such  a  right  —  a  right  to 
be  exercised  with  prudence  and  wisdom,  and  under  a  strong 
sense  of  obligation  to  the  dictates  of  justice  —  seems  to  me 
to  be  inherent  in  the  very  constitution  of  sovereign  States, 
responsible  to  no  common  superior.  And  if  any  one  doubts 
its  existence,  I  will  refer  him  to  Vattel,  Book  S,  c.  18. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  treaty  of  amity  and  com- 
merce had  been  avowedly  modified  by  France  on  her  own 
separate  action,  and  against  our  earnest  and  persevering 
remonstrances  ;  and  that  it  had  been  virtually  abrogated  by 
a  system  of  flagrant  depredations  on  our  commerce,  not  only 
in  violation  of  the  express  stipulations  of  that  treaty,  but 
against  the  received  principles  and  rules  of  international  law. 
I  hold,  therefore,  that  the^  treaties  existing  between  France 
and  the  United  States  in  1798,  when  their  differences  com- 
menced, were  terminated  by  the  acts  and  declarations  of  both 
parties.  The  declarations  of  France  were  less  comprehen- 
sive than  those  of  the  United  States ;  her  acts  were  open, 
palpable,  and  direct.  The  declaration  of  the  United  States 
was  full  and  unequivocal.  She  pronounced  herself  freed  and 
liberated  from  the  obligation  of  the  treaties  ;  and  she  acted 
in  conformity  to  the  declaration. 

But  if  any  doubt  remains  as  to  the  fact  that  the  treaties 
had  ceased  to  be  of  any  obligation,  it  appears  to  me  it.  must 
be  dissipated   by  a  reference  to  the  hostile  acts  to  which  I 
11 


82  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

have  referred.  The  two  countries  were,  for  all  essential 
purposes,  in  a  state  of  war.  The  public  armed  vessels  of 
the  United  States  met  those  of  France  as  enemies,  captured 
them,  brought  them  within  our  jurisdiction,  and,  by  regu- 
larly authorized  judicial  processes,  they  were  condemned  and 
sold,  and  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  distributed  among  the 
captors.  Private  armed  vessels,  under  a  like  authority,  were 
scouring  the  ocean,  capturing  the  armed  vessels  of  France, 
and  bringing  them  in  for  condemnation.  I  am  aware  that 
this  state  of  hostilities  was  not  preceded  by  any  general 
declaration  of  war,  and  that  it  was  confined,  by  the  acts  of 
Congress  referred  to,  within  certain  specified  limits.  But  it 
was  not  the  less  a  state  of  open  hostility.  And  though  it 
was  denied  that  it  was  technically  war,  I  apprehend  that  a 
man  of  that  day,  who  had  .been  told,  in  the  face  of  the  sur- 
rounding circumstances,  that  the  United  States  were  at  peace 
with  France,  would,  to  say  the  least,  have  been  somewhat 
surprised  at  the  information.  It  was  a  state  of  hostility  so 
nearly  resembling  actual  war,  that  it  could  only  be  terminated 
by  a  convention  or  treaty.  The  parties  could  never  other- 
wise have  resumed  their  ancient  peaceful  and  friendly  rela- 
tions. And  when  the  French  Ministers,  at  the  opening  of 
the  negotiation  in  1800,  (page  584,)  required  that  "the 
armed  ships  of  the  United  States  should  no  longer  attack 
the  ships  of  the  Republic,"  our  Ministers  replied  (same 
page)  that  they  were  not  authorized  even  to  give  assurances 
on  this  point,  "  otherwise  than  by  incorporating  them  in  a 
treaty." 

I  repeat,  that  I  consider  the  treaties  of  177^  abrogated 
by  both  the  contracting  parties  :  first,  by  declarations,  par- 
tial on  the  one  side,  and  full  on  the  other ;  and,  second,  by 
the  acts  of  both,  —  by  an  avowed  disregard,  by  an  open  vio- 
lation of  the  stipulations  of  those  treaties  on  one  side,  and 
on  the  other  by  authorized,  declared  acts  of  hostility,  which 
were  not  distinguishable  from  acts  of  war.  And,  with  the 
sincere  respect  I  entertain  for  the  opinion  of  the  Senator 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  83 

from  Delaware,  I  cannot  but  regard  the  abrogation  of  the 
treaties  to  have  been  as  effectual  as  though  it  had  been  done 
by  mutual  consent. 

Previous  to  this  entire  disruption  of  the  amicable  rela- 
tions of  the  two  countries,  Messrs.  Pinckney,  Marshall, 
and  Gerry,  who  were  sent  out  as  Ministers  to  France  in 
17975  had,  to  use  the  language  of  one  of  our  official  doc- 
uments, "  been  refused  a  reception,  treated  with  indignities, 
and  finally  driven  from  its  territories."     (Page  561.) 

I  will  now  take  up  the  transactions  between  the  two 
countries  when  negotiations  w^ere  resumed,  and  see  in 
what  light  they  regarded  their  relations  to  each  other. 

Early  in  1799,  Oliver  Ellsworth,  Patrick  Henry,  and 
William  Vans  Murray — the  latter  being  then  Minister  at 
the  Hague  —  were  appointed  Envoys  Extraordinary  and 
Ministers  Plenipotentiary  to  France,  but  with  a  distinct 
intimation  to  the  French  government  that  they  would  not 
be  sent  out  until  we  were  assured  that  they  would  be  re- 
ceived. The  assurance  was  given ;  William  R.  Davie  was 
appointed  in  place  of  Patrick  Henry,  who  declined ;  and 
in  March,  1800,  they  reached  Paris. 

I  desire  to  state,  in  order  to  do  justice  to  the  subject, 
one  of  the  strong  points  on  which  the  claimants  rely.  In 
the  instructions  to  our  Ministers,  they  were  directed  to 
inform  the  Ministers  of  France  "  that  the  United  States 
expect  from  France,  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  the 
treaty,  a  stipulation  to  make  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  full  compensation  for  all  losses  and  damages,  which 
they  shall  have  sustained  by  reason  of  irregular  or  illegal 
captures  or  condemnations  of  their  vessels  and  other  prop- 
erty, under  color  of  authority  or  commissions  from  the 
French  Republic  or  its  agents."     (Page  56^.) 

These  claims  to  indemnity,  which  were  large  in  amount, 
I  cannot  find  that  the  French  government  ever  unconditionally 
recognized,  at  any  stage  of  the  negotiation ;  and  the  diplo- 
matic correspondence  which  ensued    between  our  Ministers 


84  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

on  the  one  side,  and  the  French  Ministers  —  Messrs.  Jo- 
seph Bonaparte,  Fleurieu,  and  Roederer  ■'— on  the  other, 
was  conducted  with  a  good  deal  of  adroitness  and  perti- 
nacity. The  latter,  with  a  view  to  avoid  the  payment  of 
indemnities  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  spolia- 
tions, set  up  a  claim  to  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  trea- 
ties, (page  581.)  Indeed,  they  claimed  that  the  treaties  of 
1778  had  never  been  abrogated ;  and  that,  if  France  in- 
demnified citizens  of  the  United  States  for  a  violation  of 
those  treaties,  the  United  States  should  acknowledge  the 
treaties  as  then  existing,  and  thus  give  France  the  benefit 
of  the  stipulations  they  contained.  The  Ministers  of  the 
United  States  insisted,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  treaties 
had  been  dissolved  by  the  acts  of  both  parties  (page  612); 
that  the  act  dissolving  them  could  not  be  recalled  (page 
592);  and  that  we  were  under  no  obligation  to  renew 
them. 

The  first  proposition  of  our  Ministers  at  the  commence* 
ment  of  the  negotiation  was,  "to  ascertain  and  discharge 
the  equitable  claims  of  the  citizens  of  either  nation  upon 
the  other."  (Page  581.)  The  French  Ministers  replied, 
by  saying  that  the  first  object  should  be  to  determine  "  the 
regulations  and  steps  to  be  followed  for  the  estimation 
and  indemnification  of  injuries  for  which  either  nation 
may  make  claim  for  itself  or  for  any  of  its  citizens."  — 
(Same  page.)  Our  Ministers,  in  their  answer,  objected  to 
the  claims  which  either  nation  might  make  for  itself, 
(page  5S2,)  because  they  understood  the  French  Ministers 
to  refer  to  a  restoration  of  the  treaties.  The  French 
Ministers  reasserted  their  national  claims  (page  588); 
and  at  page  591  it  will  be  seen  that  they  declared,  that, 
when  they  acknowledged  "the  principle  of  compensation," 
it  was  "  as  a  consequence  of  ancient  treaties."  The  posi 
tion  thus  taken  by  the  French  Ministers  at  the  ver 
threshold  of  the  negotiation  I  have  not  found  that  the 
abandoned,  either .  during  its  progress  or  at  its  close. 


I 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  g5 

Throug"hout  the  negotiation,  then,  it  appears  that  the 
French  Ministers  pertinaciously  coupled  the  restoration  of 
the  ancient  treaties  with  the  mutual  payment  of  indemni- 
ties, (page  641.)  To  use  their  own  words:  "Either  the 
ancient  treaties,  with  the  privileges  resulting  from  priority 
and  the  stipulation  of  reciprocal  indemnities,  or  a  new 
treaty  assuring  equality  without  indemnity."     (Page  618.) 

There  is  no  douht  that  the  position  taken  by  the  French 
negotiators,  and  adhered  to  with  obstinacy,  as  our  Minis- 
ters said  in  one  of  their  communications,  and  the  final 
surrender  of  the  treaties  and  of  mutual  claims  to  indem- 
nity, give  to  the  transaction  on  its  face  the  appearance  of 
an  agreement  between  the  parties  to  set  off  the  one 
against  the  other.  But  I  believe  that  a  careful  investiga- 
tion of  the  matter  will  show  that  it  was  so  in  appear- 
ance only,  and  not  in  fact.  To  place  the  matter  in  its 
true  light,  we  have  only  to  separate  the  subjects  of  dis- 
pute from  each  other :  first,  the  treaties ;  and,  second,  the 
indemnities  mutually  claimed.  I  assume  these  to  be  the 
only  subjects  of  disagreement.  I  assume  the  position  de- 
liberately, and  with  full  knowledge  that  a  different  classifi- 
cation had  been  made,  viz:  first,  the  treaties;  second,  our 
claims  for  spoliations ;  and  third,  the  claims  of  France  un- 
der the  treaties  and  otherwise.  I  reject  thi^  classification, 
because  the  two  last  items  were  embraced  in  the  general 
designation  of  "indemnities  mutually  claimed,"  and  be- 
cause, if  the  third  item  was  a  proper  one,  then  it  would 
have  been  proper  for  us  to  add  a  fourth  by  setting  up  our 
claims  under  the  treaties  as  an  offset  to  hers,  as  the  expense 
of  equipping  fleets  and  arming  to  defend  our  commerce 
against  her  aggressions.  She  did  not  claim,  as  I  can  find, 
any  indemnity  on  account  of  the  non-execution  of  the 
guaranty  contained  in  the  treaty  of  alliance.  We  always 
insisted  that  the  casus  foederis  had  not  occurred.  We 
insisted  that  the  war  between  France  and  Great  Britain 
was  an  offensive  war  on  the  part  of  the  former,  and  that 


gg  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

the  execution  of  the  guaranty  could  only  be  claimed  in  the 
case  of  a  defensive  war.  Indeed,  I  have  not  been  able  to 
\  find  that  she  called  on  us  to  execute  it.  Her  real  claim 
was  to  a  recognition  of  the  treaties,  and  especially  the 
treaty  of  commerce.  In  respect  to  any  claims  to  indem- 
nity on  her  part  under  the  latter,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
refer  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  expositions,  to  see  how  groundless 
they  would  have  been. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  stated  that  France  had 
claimed  from  us  a  compliance  with  the  stipulation  of  the 
treaty  of  alliance,  by  which  we  had  guaranteed  to  her  the 
possession  of  her  West  India  islands;  and  he  referred  to  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Genet,  at  page  281,  and  to  another  letter 
from  Mr.  Adet,  Mr.  Genet's  successor,  (page  8^4,)  to  prove 
that  she  had  called  on  us  to  execute  the  guaranty.  I  am 
constrained  to  say  that  these  references  of  the  honorable 
Senator  do  not  appear  to  sustain  the  position,  as,  I  think,  the 
Senator  will  himself  admit  on  a  more  careful  examination  of 
the  subject.  Mr.  Genet's  letter  bears  date  the  14th  of  No- 
vember, 1793,  and  the  following  is  the  paragraph  alluded 
to :  — 

"  I  beg  you  to  lay  before  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  soon 
as  possible  the  decree  and  the  enclosed  note,  and  to  obtain  from  him  the 
earliest  decision  either  as  to  the  guaranty  I  have  claimed  the  fulfilment 
of  for  our  colonies,  or  upon  the  mode  of  negotiation  of  the  new  treaty 
I  was  charged  to  propose  to  the  United  States,  and  which  would  make  ' 
of  the  two  nations  but  one  family." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  this  request  is  in  the  alternative, 
and,  by  a  reference  to  Mr.  Genet's  preceding  letter,  that  he 
is  speaking  of  new  commercial  arrangements  with  the 
French  colonies  under  new  regulations  adopted  by  France 
Not  one  word  will  be  found  in  reference  to  an  armed  de-' 
fence  of  those  colonies.  In  no  one  of  Mr.  Genet's  previous 
letters  will  any  claim  by  the  government  of  France,  as  I 
believe,  to  the  execution  of  the  guaranty  in  the  treaty  of 
alliance    be    found.      On    the  contrary,  there  is    abundant 


FRENCH    SPOLIATIONS.  87 

evidence  to  show  that  its  execution  was  not  designed  to  be 
claimed.  By  referring  to  page  55,  it  will  be  seen  by  Mr. 
Jefferson's  statement  that  Mr.  Genet,  less  than  six  months 
before  this  letter  was  written,  declared  to  Mr.  Jefferson  him- 
self, to  the  President,  General  Washington,  and  at  a  public 
meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Philadelphia,  that  "  France  did 
not  expect  that  we  should  become  a  party  to  the  war  "  be- 
tween her  and  Great  Britain.  By  referring  to  page  84, 
it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Monroe,  our  Minister  to  France,  in 
a  letter  dated  the  15th  September,  1794*,  nearly  a  year  after 
the  date  of  Mr.  Genet's  letter^  said  that  the  French  Republic 
"  had  declined  calling  on  us  to  execute  the  guaranty  " ;  and 
at  page  7^  it  will  be  found  that  Mr.  Monroe,  in  June,  1794, 
was  instructed,  in  case  the  execution  of  the  guaranty  was 
demanded,  to  refer  the  French  government  to  our  own. 

By  reference  to  page  97?  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States  to  Mr.  Randolph  will  be  found, 
dated  the  1st  of  June,  1795,  stating  that  we  had  not,  nor, 
as  he  said,  "  have  we  yet  been  required  to  execute  the  guar- 
anty " ;  and  this,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  was  nearly  two 
years  after  Mr.  Genet's  letter  was  written. 

The  facts  to  which  I  have  referred  show,  as  I  think,  that 
France  did  not  design  to  call  on  us  to  execute  the  guaranty 
of  her  West  India  possessions;  and  we  insisted  that  we 
were  not  bound  to  execute  it.  She  had  clearly  not  called  on 
us  previously  to  1796,  if  the  declarations  of  our  own  gov- 
ernment are  to  be  credited ;  and  her  principal  West  India 
islands  were  subdued  in  1794  by  Sir  John  Jervis,  after- 
wards Lord  St,  Vincent:  a  title  conferred  on  him  on  account 
of  his  masterly  defeat  of  the  Spanish  fleet  off  the  cape  of 
that  name.  If  we  had  been  called  on  to  execute  the  guar- 
anty subsequently  to  1794,  it  must  have  been  to  reconquer 
these  islands ;  and  it  is  well  known  that,  by  the  treaty  of 
Amiens,  all  the  West  India  possessions  of  France  were 
stipulated  to  be  restored  to  her,  with  the  exception  of  Trini- 
dad.    I   will  not  speak  of  an   execution   of  the  guaranty 


88  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

subsequently  to    179^ ;    for   with   what  face  could  we  be 
called  on  for  the  purpose  by  France,  when  she  was  engaged 
5  in  the  most  flagrant  depredations  on  our  commerce  1 

I  now  refer  to  Mr.  Adet's  letter  of  the  15th  of  Novem- 
ber, 1796,  which  will  be  found  at  page  854,  and  which,  I 
think,  I  was  not  .mistaken  in  saying  had  been  cited  to  show 
that  we  had  been  called  on  to  fulfil  by  force  the  guaranty  of 
her  West  India  islands  to  France.  Mr.  Adet  commences 
his  letter  by  claiming,  "  in  the  name  of  American  honor,  in 
the  name  of  the  faith  of  treaties,  the  execution  of  that  con- 
tract, which  assured  to  the  United  States  their  existence,  and 
which  France  regarded  as  the  pledge  of  the  most  sacred 
union  between  two  people,  the  freest  upon  earth."  He 
then  proceeds  to  state  the  grievances  of  which  the  Govern- 
ment of  France  complained,  discussing  in  an  elaborate  man- 
ner the  various  subjects  of  disagreement  between  the  two 
countries,  the  interpretations  given  to  the  17th  and  2Sd 
articles  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  in  respect  to 
privateers  and  prizes,  the  mission  of  Mr.  Jay,  the  treaty  he 
negotiated  with  Great  Britain,  and  other  kindred  subjects. 
On  the  S65th  page  will  be  found  a  recapitulation  of  these 
grievances  by  Mr.  Adet,  as  the  result  of  the  statement  I 
have  just  given,  and  no  reference  will  be  found  to  the  guar- 
anty of  the  West  India  islands.  The  only  reference  I  have 
been  able  to  find  to  these  islands  is  a  general  one,  near  the 
close  of  the  letter,  (page  367,)  J^  which  the  United  States 
are  charged  with  allowing  "  the  French  colonies  to  be  de- 
clared in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  its  citizens  interdicted  the 
right  of  trading  to  them " ;  and  this  reference  I  cannot 
regard  as  a  call  on  the  United  States  then,  or  as  the  evi- 
dence of  a  previous  call,  to  execute  the  guaranty,  —  the 
question  1  suppose  to  be "  at  issue. 

Mr.  Jefferson's  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  in  April,  1794^,  to  ; 
which  the  Senator  from  Delaware  referred,  (see  volume  8  of  J 
his  Works,  page  808,)  was  written   at  Monticello,  and  it 
certainly  expresses  the  opinion  that  we  ought,  at  a  proper 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  89 

time,  to  interpose  and  declare  that  the  French  West  India 
islands  should  rest  with  France.  But  would  Mr.  Jefferson 
have  expressed  the  same  opinion  a  few  years  later,  when  our 
difficulties  with  her  had  ripened  into  open  hostility  1  It  is 
not  to  be  believed.  At  page*  4-00  of  the  same  volume,  a 
letter  will  be  found  from  him  to  Samuel  Smith,  dated 
August  22,  1798,  in  which  he  says  both  France  and  Eng- 
land "  have  given,  and  are  daily  giving,  sufficient  cause  for 
war " ;  and  at  page  4?25  of  the  same  volume,  in  another 
letter,  dated  March  1£,  1799,  he  says,  (though  expressing 
the  belief  that  France  had  sincerely  desired  peace,)  "  The 
atrocious  proceedings  of  France  towards  this  country  had 
wellnigh  destroyed  its  liberties."  Both  these  letters  were 
written  while  he  was  Vice-President  of  the  United  States, 
and  while  he  was  taking  an  active  part  in  the  political  con- 
cerns of  the  country. 

I  do  not  regard  this  question  of  any  very  material  con- 
sequence so  far  as  it  concerns  the  claims  under  consider- 
ation ;  but  it  has  been  referred  to  as  the  evidence  of  a 
breach  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  I  felt 
it  due  to  the  subject  to  present  the  facts  I  have  stated,  leav- 
ing to  the  Senate  to  draw  its  own  conclusions  from  these 
facts. 

Let  us  return  a  moment  to  the  treaties  of  1778»  They 
were,  as  we  have  seen,  treaties  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
parties.  The  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  contained  stip- 
ulations of  reciprocal  advantage.  France  placed  a  higher 
value  on  the  advantages  secured  to  her  than  we  on  those 
secured  to  us ;  but  this  does  not  aff*ect  the  nature  of  the 
treaties.  Their  fundamental  purpose  was  mutuality.  In 
renouncing  or  abandoning  them,  both  parties  renounced 
substantial  benefits.  In  renouncing  the  treaty  of  amity 
and  commerce,  we  lost  the  benefit  of  the  stipulation  that  free 
ships  make  free  goods,  —  a  great  principle,  for  which  we 
had  been  contending  from  the  foundation  of  our  indepen- 
dence,—  and  were  thrown  back  upon  the  more  rigorous  prin- 
12 


90 


SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 


ciple  of  the  international  rule,  as  then  asserted,  understood, 
and  acted  on,  that  enemy's  goods  may  be  taken  in  neutral 
bottoms.  (Page  624.)  We  also  lost  the  benefit  of  the 
stipulation  concerning  contraband  articles,  which  were  placed 
by  the  treaty  on  a  more  liberal  footing  than  they  would  have 
been  if  governed  by  the  existing  usages  of  civilized  States. 
France  lost  some  benefits  also ;  but  the  advantages  on  the 
one  side  under  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  may  be 
considered  as  fairly  counterbalancing  those  on  the  other. 
The  treaty  of  alliance  contained  mutual  guaranties ;  and 
these  were  considered  beneficial  both  to  us  and  France.  In 
the  instructions  to  Messrs.  Pinckney,  Marshall,  and  Gerry, 
they  were  directed  to  propose  an  exchange  of  these  guaran- 
ties for  specific  succors ;  —  the  United  States  to  furnish  a 
moderate  sum  of  money,  or  quantity  of  provisions,  when 
the  casus  foederis  (a  defensive  war)  should  occur,  and  France 
a  like  sum  of  money,  or  an  equivalent  in  military  stores  or 
clothing.  (Page  4*57-)  The  same  view  of  the  subject  was 
taken  in  1800  by  the  American  Ministers,  who  proposed,  in 
case  the  treaties  were  revived,  that  the  guaranty  should  be 
specific  and  the  succors  equal.  (Page  6SS.^  I  cite  these 
views  to  show  that  the  treaties  were  considered  as  conferring 
reciprocal  benefits  and  imposing  mutual  burdens,  and  that, 
in  renouncing  them,  the  advantage  gained  was  not  wholly  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States.  The  latter,  it  is  true,  were 
unwiUing  to  reassume  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  treaties, 
from  an  earnest  desire  to  avoid  alliances  which  should  involve 
us  in  wars  waged  by  the  great  powers  of  Europe  against 
each  other ;  and  the  American  Ministers  offered  at  one  time 
to  pay  eight  milHons  of  francs  (about  a  million  and  a  half 
of  dollars)  as  a  consideration  for  not  reviving  them,  —  (page 
6£9,)  —  not  as  a  consideration  for  getting  rid  of  existing 
obligations,  but  for  not  reviving  old  ones.  But  this  propo- 
sition was  a  part  of  a  series  of  offers,  embracing  an  adjust- 
ment of  all  the  subjects  of  dissension,  —  offers  which  were 
not  accepted  by  France  because   they  were    considered  too 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  9I 

advantageous  to  us.  Indeed  it  was  made  by  the  American 
Ministers  with  extreme  reluctance,  even  in  connection  with 
propositions  for  our  benefit,  and  from  their  great  desire,  to 
use  their  own  words,  "  to  terminate,  without  further  loss  of 
time,  the  present  negotiation."  The  offer  was  made,  too, 
with  a  distinct  recorded  declaration  by  the  American  Minis- 
ters, almost  contemporaneous  wdth  it,  that,  if  "  the  guaranty 
between  France  and  the  United  States  did  in  fact  contem- 
plate succors,  they  must  have  been  principally  for  the  latter 
[the  United  States],  who  might  need  them,  rather  than  for 
the  former  [France],  who  was  evidently  competent  to  protect 
herself."     (Page  688,) 

From  the  whole  course  of  the  negotiation,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  treaties  were  considered  as  imposing  mutual  obliga- 
tions,— not  mutual  in  name  merely,  but  in  effect ;  and  I  have 
been  able  to  discover  nothing  in  the  history  of  the  negotia- 
tion to  justify  the  inference  that  the  United  States  intended, 
by  finally  treating  without  exacting  indemnity  for  all  our 
claims  on  France,  to  offset  indemnities  to  the  obligations 
imposed  on  her  by  the  treaties,  and  to  assume  the  payment 
of  the  indemnities  ourselves.  The  French  negotiators  en- 
deavored to  set  them  off  against  each  other,  for  the  reasons 
I  have  already  assigned;  but  the  justice  of  such  a  set-off 
was  never  acceded  to  by  the  United  States.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  American  Ministers  virtually  refused  to  set  them 
off  against  each  other ;  and  they  refused,  also,  to  assume 
the  payment  of  indemnities  by  the  United  States. 

After  a  long  negotiation,  a  convention  was  concluded  on 
the  80th  of  September,  1800.  The  second  article,  which 
related  exclusively  to  the  treaties  and  to  the  indemnities,  I 
will  read  to  the  Senate. 

"  The  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  two  parties,  not  being  able 
to  agree  at  present  respecting  the  treaty  of  alliance  of  the  6th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1778,  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  the  same  date,  and 
the  convention  of  the  14th  of  November,  1788,  nor  upon  the  indem- 
nities mutually  due  or  claimed,  the  parties  will  negotiate  further  on 
these  subjects  at  a  convenient  time ;  and  until  they  may  have  agreed 


92 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


upon  these  points,  the  said  treaties  and  convention  shall  have  no  oper- 
ation, and  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  shall  be  regulated  as  fol- 
lows."    (Page  683.) 

The  third  article  provided  for  a  mutual  restoration  of  pub 
lie  ships  taken  before  or  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications. 

The  fourth  article  provided  for  a  mutual  restoration  of 
property  captured,  and  not  then  definitively  condemned,  or 
which  might  be  captured  before  the  exchange  of  ratifications 

The  fifth  article  provided  for  the  payment  of  debts  con- 
tracted by  either  nation  with  individuals  of  the  other,  or  by 
the  individuals  of  one  with  the  individuals  of  the  other,  or 
the  prosecution  of  the  payment,  as  if  no  misunderstanding 
had  existed.  But  this  article  was  declared  not  to  extend  to 
indemnities  claimed  on  account  of  captures  or  confiscations. 

The  effect  of  the  second  article  of  the  convention  was  to 
postpone  all  further  negotiation  in  respect  to  the  treaties  and 
indemnities  named  in  it  to  a  future  day. 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  ratified  the  convention, 
after  expunging  the  second  article,  and  limiting  the  duration 
of  the  convention  to  eight  years. 

Bonaparte,  as  First  Consul,  accepted  and  ratified  the 
convention,  as  amended,  (page  685,)  with  a  proviso,  that, 
by  the  retrenchment  of  the  second  article,  "  the  two  States 
renounce  the  respective  pretensions  which  are  the  object 
of  the  said  article." 

On  the  submission  of  the  convention,  as  modified  by 
France,  to  the  Senate,  it  was  declared  by  a  vote  of  that 
body,  on  the  19th  of  December,  1801,  that  they  considered 
it  fully  r^tified.^ 

The  questions  which  arise  from  the  facts  I  have  stated 
are :  — 

1st.  Whether  the  engagement  contained  in  the  second 
article  of  the  convention  to  negotiate  at  a  future  day,  in 
respect  to  the  treaties  and  indemnities,  secured  to  the  United 
States  any  advantage  in  respect  to  claims  for  spoliations'? 

1  Executive  Journal,  Vol.  I.  p.  398. 


I 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.  93 

£d.  Whether  the  United  States,  by  expunging  the  second 
article,  released  any  claims  to  indemnities  which  had  been 
so  distinctly  recognized  by  France  as  to  make  the  United 
States  legally  or  equitably  responsible  for  their  payment 
to  her  citizens  1     And, 

8d.  Whether  the  United  States,  by  assenting  to  the 
proviso  inserted  in  the  ratification  by  France,  renouncing 
the  respective  pretensions  which  were  the  object  of  the 
second  article,  imposed  on  herself  any  obligation  to  pay 
the  indemnities  claimed  by  her  citizens  on  account  of  spolia- 
tions. 

1st.  The  first  question  appears  to  be  satisfactorily  an- 
swered by  the  whole  history  of  the  correspondence  between 
the  Ministers  by  whom  the  convention  was  negotiated. 
The  French  negotiators  uniformly  refused  to  acknowledge 
the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  indemnities,  excepting 
upon  a  concession  of  what  they  professed  to  regard  as 
important  advantages  to  France  by  a  recognition  of  the 
treaties  of  1778'  The  Ministers  of  the  United  States 
refused  to  accede  to  these  demands.  In  other  words, 
they  refused  to  secure  to  the  United  States  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  these  claims  on  the  conditions  insisted  on  by 
the  French  negotiators.  It  was  a  question  with  them,  not 
of  recognizing  existing  obligations,  but  reviving  obligations 
which  had  ceased  to  exist;  and  this  they  declined  to  do. 
They  refused  to  purchase  the  payment  of  indemnities  at 
the  price  demanded  by  France.  The  result  of  a  fruitless 
negotiation  was,  to  leave  the  whole  controversy  where  it 
was  when  the  correspondence  commenced  ;  and  if  the  con- 
vention had  been  ratified  without  expunging  the  second 
article,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  a  negotiation 
at  a  future  day  would  have  led  to  any  other  issue.  On 
the  contrary,  I  do  not  see  how  any  one  can  rise  from  a 
perusal  of  the  volume  I  hold  in  my  hand  with  the  slightest 
impression  that  a  renewal  of  the  diplomatic  correspondence 
between    the    two  governments  would   have  resulted   more 


94  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

favorably  to   us.     The  American    Ministers  state,  in    sul 
stance,  in  their  letter  giving  a  history  of  the   negotiation,] 
that  the  real  object  avowed  by  the  French    Ministers  was! 
to  avoid  indemnities  (pages  682  and  64<8) ;  that  a  prom-j 
ise  to  pay  them  at  a  remote  period  might  as  easily  prove 
delusive  as  it  would   be  reluctantly  made ;    and  that  such] 
a  promise  could  only  be  obtained  by  an  unqualified  recog- 
nition of  the  treaties,  the  future  operation  of  which  could] 
not   be  varied    in    any  particular   for   any  consideration  orj 
compensation  whatever.     It   is    not  reasonable  to  suppose, 
under    such   circumstances,    that    any  subsequent   claim    to] 
indemnities    in    a   future    negotiation  would   have  had  an] 
other  result. 

2d.  The  suppression  of  the  second  article  was  a  release 
of  the    parties  from    the    obligation  of  further  negotiating! 
at  a  convenient  time  in  respect  to  the  treaties  and  indem- 
nities, leaving    them  precisely  where  they  were  in  respect 
to  the  claims  or  pretensions  which  were  the  object  of  the] 
article.     It  is  not  possible  to  ascertain  now  what  was  the 
object  of  the  Senate  in  expunging  this  article.      The  injun< 
tioh  of  secrecy  has  been  removed  from  the  votes,  but  the 
debates  have  not  been  preserved ;   and  it  appears  that  the 
American   Minister,  Mr.    Murray,    who   was   appointed   to 
exchange    the    ratifications,  was  "perfectly  in  the  dark  on 
the  views  of  the  Senate  in  suppressing  the  second  article." 
This  was    his  own    language.     But    it   is   quite  clear  that 
the  omission  of   the  second  article  in  negotiating  the  con- 
vention would  have  left  the  parties,  in  respect  to  the  matters 
contained    in    the    article,  entirely  uncommitted  as  to  their 
future    course ;    and    its    suppression    did  no  more.      Thus: 
far  no  claims  on    France  had    been  released,  and  no  obli-| 
gations  assumed  by  the  United  States. 

Sd.  The  proviso  inserted  by  Bonaparte  in  ratifying  the) 
convention  after  its  modification  by  us,  and  our  assent  to| 
the  terms  of  the  proviso,  appear  at  first  view  to  have! 
changed  the  position  of  the  parties  in  respect  to  the  claims] 


FRENCH    SPOLIATIONS. 


95 


or  pretensions  which  were  the  object  of  the  second  article. 
Those  claims  or  pretensions  were  in  terms  renounced.  But 
it  is  quite  clear  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  did 
not  regard  the  renunciation  as  changing  the  state  of  the 
question  ;  they  did  not  consider  a  new  ratification  neces- 
sary ;  they  declared  that  they  considered  the  convention 
"  fully  ratified."  Would  they  have  made  such  a  declara- 
tion if  they  had  considered  the  insertion  of  the  proviso  as 
creating  new  liabilities  on  either  side,  or  discharging  old 
ones  ?  It  is  difficult  to  believe  so.  Mr.  Jefferson  spoke 
of  it  as  "  a  clause  declaratory  of  the  effect  given  to  the 
meaning  of  the  treaty";  and  he  authorized  Mr.  Madison 
to  say  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  anything  "more  than 
a  legitimate  inference  from  the  rejection  by  the  Senate  of 
the  second  article."  (Page  ^08.)  Mr.  Livingston,  our 
Minister  to  France,  spoke  of  it  as  intended  "  to  remove 
ambiguities  " ;  not  to  give  a  new  effect  to  the  treaty,  but 
to  explain  its  true  meaning  and  intent.     (Page  7^1') 

Besides,  there  was  no  formal  offset  of  the  advantages 
claimed  by  France  as  resulting  to  her  from  the  treaties 
against  the  advantages  to  result  to  us  from  a  recognition 
of  the  indemnities  claimed.  Down  to  the  termination  of 
the  negotiation,  and,  indeed,  to  the  final  exchange  of  ratifica- 
tions, such  a  set-off"  of  one  to  the  other  was  only  inferable, 
as  I  think,  from  the  connection  of  the  two  subjects,  for  an 
interested  purpose,  by  the  French  Ministers.  (Pages  641, 
et  seq.) 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  has  referred  to  the  opinions 
of  distinguished  individuals,  favoring  the  idea  that  the 
United  States  intended  to  release  France  from  the  pay- 
ment of  these  indemnities,  in  consideration  of  being  herself 
released  from  the  obligations  of  the  treaties.  I  will  ex- 
amine two  of  the  most  important. 

Mr.  R.  Livingston,  who  went  out  to  France  as  Minister 
near  the  close  of  the  year  1801,  said  (page  ^0^)  he  consid- 
ered "  as  a  dead  loss  "  "  the  sacrifices  we  had  made  of  an 


96 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE 


immense  claim,  to  get  rid  of  the  guaranty  contained  in  the! 
treaty  of  alliance."     And  again,  in  a  letter  to  the  Frencl 
Minister  of  Exterior  Relations,  he  said :  — 

"  It  will,  sir,  be  well  recollected  by  the  distinguished  characters  wh( 
had  the  management  of  the  negotiation,  that  the  payment  for  ille| 
captures,  with  damages  and  indemnities,  was  demanded  on  one  sideJ 
and  the  renewal  of  the  treaty  of  1778  on  the  other ;  that  they  were! 
considered  as  of  equivalent  value,  and  that  they  only  formed  the  sub-j 
ject  of  the  second  article."     (Page  717.) 

Mr.  Livingston  had  taken  no  part  in  these  negotiations;! 
and  it  has  been  satisfactorily  shown  that  there  was  no  formal] 
exchange  of  pretensions,  arising  under  the  treaties  on  the 
one  side,  and  claims  arising  from  spoliations  on  the  other.! 
On  the  contrary,  the  benefits  and  the  burdens  under  the  trea- 
ties were  mutual,  as  well  as  the  claims  to  indemnities.     I] 
will  proceed  to  show,  by  official  documents,  that  Mr.  Living- 
ston was  entirely  in  error  in  saying  that  claims  for  indemni-j 
ties  on  our  side,  and  the  treaties  on  the  side  of  France,  were 
considered  by  the  negotiators  of  equivalent  value.     Indeed 
I  have  already  proved,  by  the  testimony  of  our  Ministers  J 
that  they  considered  the  prospect  of  obtaining  a  recognition] 
of   our  claims  as   delusive.      (Page   64*8.)      But  there  is! 
stronger  evidence  on  this  point.     Mr.  Murray,  on  the   Istj 
of  October,  1800,  the  day  after  the  convention  was  executed,] 
speaks    of   the    indemnities    as    "impossible"    [hopeless], 
(Page  661.)     On  the   2d  of   July,    1801,    he  speaks  of 
our    claim    to    indemnities    "  as    not  worth   a  quarter  jperl 
centum:'     (Page    676.)      On    the   8d    August,    1801,  he] 
says :  "  If  the  Senate  meant,  as  I  hope,  to  consider  indem- 
nities as  worth   nothing,  then   the   business,  I  presume,  is^ 
closed  ;  "  and  in  the  same  communication  he  alleges  "  the 
absolute  want  of  value  in  the  prospect  of  indemnities  "  as  a] 
reason  for  accepting  the  proviso  inserted  by  Bonaparte,  re- 
nouncing all  pretensions  on  both  sides  under  the  second  arti- 
cle.    How,  then,  can  it  be  said  that  the  negotiators  consid- 
ered the  treaties  on  one  side,  and  the  indemnities  on  the; 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS. 


97 


Other,  as  of  equivalent  value]  The  testimony  proves  pre- 
cisely the  contrary:  that  they  considered  our  claims  to  in- 
demnities as  of  no  value,  or  at  least  hopeless  ;  and  such  was 
probably  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  in  abandoning  them. 

I  now  come  to  an  opinion,  which  I  will  admit  to  be  much 
more  formidable  if  it  has  been  properly  interpreted  by  the 
advocates  of  the  claims  under  consideration.  I  allude  to  the 
letter  of  instructions  from  Mr.  Madison  to  Mr.  Pinckney, 
our  Minister  to  Spain,  in  February,  1804.  Mr.  Madison 
said  that  "  the  claims  from  which  France  had  been  released 
were  admitted  by  France,  and  the  release  was  for  a  valuable 
consideration,  in  a  correspondent  release  of  the  United  States 
from  claims  on  them."     (Page  79^') 

I  should  certainly  hesitate  to  call  in  question  so  high  an 
authority  as  Mr.  Madison  in  any  statement  relating  to  a 
matter  directly  in  issue,  which  he  (Mr.  M.)  had  fully  inves- 
tigated ;  and  I  do  not  intend  now  to  question  this  statement 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  ought,  as  I  believe,  to  be  understood. 
The  only  points  of  any  importance  in  this  stjatement  are : 
first,  that  our  claims  "  were  admitted  by  France  " ;  and,  sec- 
ond, that  they  were  released,  and  that  "  the  release  was  for 
a  valuable  consideration,  in  a  correspondent  release  of  the 
United  States  from  certain  claims  on  them."  It  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Mr.  Madison's  reference  to  the  subject 
was  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  a  position  taken  by  our 
government  in  a  negotiation  with  a  third  power,  years  after 
the  convention  of  1 800  was  concluded  ;  and  some  allowance 
is  to  be  made  for  strength  of  expression.  With  regard  to 
the  first  point,  I  have  said  that  there  never  was,  as  I  could 
find,  after  the  war-measures  adopted  by  us  in  1798,  an  un- 
conditional admission  by  France  of  our  claims  for  spoliations. 
She  assented  to  the  principle  of  mutual  compensation  for 
injuries,  but  with  a  distinct  assertion  of  her  claim  to  a  recog- 
nition of  the  treaties.  It  was  only  on  the  condition  of  such 
a  recognition  that  she  was  willing  to  inquire  hito  the  claims 
of  both  parties  for  injuries,  national  as  well  as  individual, 

13 


98  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

with  a  stipulation  of  mutual  indemnity.  This,  I  believe,  was 
the  extent  of  her  admission,  and  it  was  a  very  qualified  one.  j 
With  regard  to  the  second  point,  —  the  release,  —  if  Mr. 
Madison  intended  to  say,  that,  in  the  adjustment  of  our  diffi- 
culties with  France,  there  were  mutual  claims  which  were 
mutually  abandoned,  no  exception  could  be  taken  to  his 
statement.  And  certainly,  in  any  other  sense,  it  would 
neither  accord  with  the  facts  I  have  stated,  nor  with  the 
declarations  of  the  negotiators  themselves.  When  converted 
into  a  sanction  of  the  idea  that  there  was  a  set-off  of  indem- 
nities claimed  by  the  United  States  against  our  treaty-obliga- 
tions to  France,  and  into  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  posi- 
tion that  we  were  bound  to  assume  the  payment  of  these 
indemnities,  it  made  Mr.  Madison's  statement  entirely  in- 
consistent with  what  our  negotiators  said  and  did,  and  with 
the  inferences  fairly  to  be  drawn  from  his  own  subsequent 
conduct,  as  I  will  endeavor  to  show  hereafter.  And  I  will 
add  here,  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  word  in  any  of 
Mr.  Madison's  writings,  or  those  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  counte- 
nancing the  idea  that  these  claims  constitute  a  just  demand 
against  the  government. 

I  do  not  much  like  to  deal  in  technicalities.  I  prefer,  as 
a  general  rule,  to  rely  on  the  deductions  of  common  sense, 
and  on  maxims  so  simple  and  so  universally  received  as  to 
make  their  application  plain  to  the  most  ordinary  understand- 
ing. But  I  cannot  forbear  to  say  that  a  release  for  a  valua- 
ble consideration  and  a  set-off  seem  to  me,  in  this  instance, 
convertible  terms.  A  set-off  implies  an  unqualified  admis- 
sion of  claims  on  both  sides,  and  a  mutual  agreement  to 
balance  the  one  against  the  other.  I  find,  in  this  case,  none 
of  these  unquestionable  evidences  of  an  exchange  of  equiva- 
lents, —  no  unqualified  admission  of  our  claims  for  spoliations 
by  France,  —  no  unqualified  admission  by  the  United  States 
of  treaty-obligations  to  her,  —  and  no  agreement  to  set,  them 
off  against  each  other.  On  the  contrary,  we  expressly^ 
denied  the  treaty-obligations,  and  France  expressly  refusec 


1 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIONS. 


99 


to  inquire  into  indemnities,  except  on  condition  of  receiving 
from  us  the  very  admission  we  declined  to  make. 

I  regard  this  case,  under  all  its  aspects,  as  one  in  which 
the  parties  had  mutually  abandoned  their  respective  preten- 
sions. But  if  it  be  assumed  that  there  was  a  set-off,  I  shall, 
without  admitting  the  assumption,  insist  that  it  was  not  of 
indemnities  on  one  side  against  treaty-obligations  on  the 
other,  but  of  indemnities  against  indemnities,  treaty-obliga- 
tions against  treaty-obligations,  —  mutual,  if  not  equal,  —  not 
bargained  for,  one  against  the  other,  as  an  exchange  of 
equivalents,  but  relinquished,  renounced,  abandoned,  on  either 
side,  from  the  utter  hopelessness  of  obtaining  a  recognition 
of  them  on  the  other.  Such  seems  to  me  to  be  the  only 
legitimate  conclusion  from  the  whole  history  of  the  negotia- 
tion, and  such  was  the  language  of  the  proviso  by  which 
the  pursuit  of  these  "  respective  pretensions "  was  "  re- 
nounced." 

That  there  was  an  abandonment  of  claims  on  France  for 
spoliations  committed  on  our  commerce,  I  have  never  d-enied. 
There  was  a  similar  abandonment  of  claims  on  her  part,  on 
account  of  captures  made  by  us  during  the  hostilities  which 
existed  between  May,  1798,  and  the  conclusion  of  the  con- 
vention of  1800.  But  whether  the  United  States  are,  in 
legal  or  equitable  obligation,  bound  to  satisfy  the  claims  thus 
abandoned  on  our  part,  is  the  question  which  we  are  called 
on  to  decide.  On  this  point  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt. 
I  believe  there  is  no  instance  in  the  history  of  our  diplomacy 
in  which  the  satisfaction  of  injuries  has  been  so  zealously 
or  faithfully  pursued.  For  five  .  years,  from  1793  to  1798, 
we  pursued  it  by  negotiation,  —  earnest,  urgent,  persevering 
negotiation.  When  all  peaceful  means  had  failed,  we  resort- 
ed to  force.  Fleets  were  equipped,  blood  was  shed,  and  the 
physical  power  of  the  country  was  vigorously  put  forth,  to 
compel  redress.  For  all  practical  purposes,  it  was  war. 
The  two  countries,  for  interested  objects  on  both  sides,  chose 
to  commence  negotiations  on  the   basis   of  peace,  though, 


100  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

before  they  closed,  they  had  approached  nearly  to  a  war-1 
basis.  But  the  facts  remained  unaltered.  The  American] 
Ministers  pronounced  it  to  be  "  war,  or  that  peculiar  state 
of  hostility  in  which  they  are  at  present  involved."  (Pagej 
684^.)  On  another  occasion  they  said,  "  Doubtless  the  con- 
gressional Act  authorizing  the  reduction  of  French  cruisers] 
by  force  was  an  authorization  of  war,  limited  indeed  in  its! 
extent,  but  not  in  its  nature."  (Page  642.)  Nay,  sir,  the 
president  of  the  French  commission,  when  treating  with  our 
Ministers,  said,  "  that,  if  the  question  could  be  determined  by 
an  indifferent  nation,  he  was  satisfied  such  a  tribunal  would 
say  that  the  present  state  of  things  was  war  on  the  side  of 
America,  and  that  no  indemnities  could  be  claimed."  The 
other  two  commissioners  made  similar  declarations.  (Page 
GSS,")  And  in  like  manner  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  to 
Samuel  Smith,  of  the  22d  August,  1793,  (page  898,  third 
volume  of  his  works,)  says,  "  It  is  true,  then,  that,  as  with 
England  we  might  of  right  have  chosen  either  war  or 
peace,  and  have  chosen  peace,  and  prudently,  in  my  opinion, 
so  with  France  we  might  also  of  right  have  chosen  either 
peace  or  war,  and  we  have  chosen  war."  But  call  it  what 
you  will,  it  was  a  resort  to  force  —  the  last  resort  of  repub- 
lics as  well  as  kings  —  to  procure  a  redress  of  wrongs ;  and 
it  vindicates  our  government  from  all  imputation  of  neglect 
or  want  of  zeal  in  the  performance  of  its  duty. 

In  the  negotiations  which  succeeded  this  state  of  hostility, 
all  the  energies  and  all  the  appliances  of  diplomacy  consist- 
ent with  honor  were  employed  to  procure  a  recognition  of 
the  claims  of  our  citizens  on  France.  To  a  certain  extent 
these  efforts  were  successful.  A  portion  of  the  claims  was 
recognized,  and  subsequently  paid,  under  the  convention  of 
1803.  A  portion  remains  unsatisfied  ;  but  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  show  that  the  United  States  —  first,  by  negotiation, 
second,  by  a  resort  to  force,  and,  third,  by  another  recourse 
to  negotiation  —  has  acquitted  herself  of  all  obligation  to 
respond  to  those,  the  satisfaction  of  whose  claims  she  unsuc- 


FRENCH  SPOLIATIOHa  /^  \     \V^'(j  'X^V 

cessfully  labored  to  effect.  I  will  not  detain  the  Senate  by 
entering  into  an  analysis  of  the  different  classes  of  these 
claims,  separating  those  which  are  alleged  to  be  unsatisfied 
from  those  for  which  indemnity  has  been  paid.  I  will  not 
stop  to  inquire  how  far  these  claims  may  have  been  well-  or 
ill-founded;  to  speculate  on  the  chances  there  may  have 
been,  when  the  testimony  was  fresh,  of  reducing  them 
within  reasonable  limits ;  or  to  consider  the  danger  now, 
after  the  lapse  of  more  than  forty  years,  of  showing  injuries 
which  might  never  have  been  clearly  proved  before  the  power 
of  sifting  evidence  was  seriously  weakened,  if  not  utterly 
lost.  These  are  considerations  of  so  serious  a  nature  as  to 
call  on  us  to  pause  and  ponder  well  the  consequences  of 
throwing  these  demands  on  the  public  treasury.  But  I  rest 
my  opposition  to  the  application  for  legislative  relief  on  the 
broader  grounds  I  have  stated. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  accounted  for  the  neglect  of 
our  government  to  recognize  these  claims  when  first  pre- 
sented to  Congress  by  the  peculiar  state  of  the  public  finances 
in  1801,  and  for  thirty  years  afterwards.  But  I  apprehend 
that  the  state  of  our  finances  at  a  period  subsequent  to  1801 
will  be  found,  in  connection  with  other  circumstances,  one 
of  the  strongest  arguments  against  this  application.  Mr. 
Madison  was  Secretary  of  State  from  1801  to  1809.  Mr. 
Jefferson,  who  was  familiar  with  the  origin  and  progress  of 
our  difficulties  with  France,  and  conducted  the  diplomatic 
correspondence  of  |^ur  government  in  respect  to  them  for 
some  time  after  they  broke  out,  was  President  of  the  United 
States  during  the  same  period,  —  from  1801  to  1809.  In 
I8O7,  the  first  report  was  made  in  Congress  in  favor  of 
these  claims,  —  for  I  cannot  agree  with  the  Senator  from 
Delaware  that  Mr.  Giles's  report  in  1802  was  a  favorable 
one.  In  his  Annual  Message  of  I8O7,  Mr.  Jefferson  reports 
a  surplus  in  the  treasury  of  eight  millions  and  a  half  of 
dollars.  In  his  Annual  Message  of  1808,  he  reports  the 
enormous  balance  of  nearly  fourteen  millions,  of  which  only 
about  five  were  required  to  meet  public  engagements,  leavinaf 


;ff)g-  ;';/*!  \    \  .Speeches  in  the  senate.  m 

again  a  disposable  surplus  of  about  eigbt  millions  and  a 
half;  and,  in  connection  with  this  balance,  he  refers  to  prob- 
able future  surpluses,  when  the  freedom  of  commerce  should 
be  restored,  and  asks  whether  they  shall  be  permitted  to  "  lie 
unproductive  in  the  public  vaults  1  "  Such  was  our  financial 
condition  in  1807  and  1808.  Sir,  is  it  credible,  if  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson and  Mr.  Madison  had  believed  this  claim  a  valid  de- 
mand on  the  government,  that  it  would  not,  through  these 
distinguished  individuals,  who  exercised  a  controlling  influ- 
ence in  Congress,  have  been  recognized  and  paid  1  If,  with 
these  men  at  the  head  of  the  government,  —  men  familiar 
with  the  history  of  the  times,  —  when  the  transactions  them- 
selves were  recent  and  well  known,  —  with  an  overflowing 
treasury,  —  with  millions,  in  fact,  remaining  without  any 
specific  object,  —  if,  under  all  these  circumstances,  the  claims 
were  not  acknowledged,  with  what  propriety  can  we  be  asked 
to  acknowledge  them  now,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  forty 
years,  when  the  memory  of  much  that  is  necessary  to  give 
to  remote  transactions  their  true  coloring,  and  to  correct  erro- 
neous conclusions  in  respect  to  them,  may  be  irretrievably 
lost  1  Sir,  there  is  no  safety  in  such  cases  but  to  rest  on  the 
contemporaneous  judgment  of  those  who  had  every  motive 
to  consider  and  judge  them  fairly,  and  who  possessed  all  the 
information  necessary  to  make  their  decision  just. 

And  finally,  sir,  I  am  compelled  to  differ  with  my  hon- 
orable friend  from  Delaware  (if  he  will  permit  me  so  to 
designate  him)  in  the  opinion  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  in  honor  responsible  for  these  claims.  A 
government  is  undoubtedly  bound  to  protect  its  citizens  in 
their  persons  and  in  their  property,  to  the  extent  of  its 
ability,  both  from  internal  and  external  injuries.  It  is 
bound  to  seek,  by  all  just  and  feasible  methods,  a  redress 
of  such  injuries :  if  domestic,  by  a  proper  application  of 
its  authority ;  if  foreign,  by  negotiation  in  the  first  instance, 
and  by  force  in  the  second,  if  the  magnitude  and  enor- 
mity of  the  aggression  justify  a  resort  to  arms.  When  it 
has  done  all  this,  it  will  have  performed  its  duty.     If  it 


FRENCH   SPOLIATIONS.         '  IQg 

cannot  succeed  in  obtaining  redress,  it  must  be  deemed 
fairly  exonerated  from  all  liability  to  its  own  citizens 
when  it  has  made  all  the  efforts  it  is  capable  of  putting 
forth  for  the  purpose.  Sir,  I  know  of  no  principle  by 
which  a  government,  after  extraordinary  .efforts  to  procure 
a  redress  of  injuries,  or  an  acknowledgment  of  the  claims 
of  its  citizens  on  a  foreign  State,  is  bound  to  assume  the 
satisfaction  of  those  claims  because  its  efforts  have  proved 
unsuccessful.  If  this  principle  "is  to  be  adopted  and  acted 
on,  we  should  go  back  to  the  ten  years  which  preceded 
the  War  of  181^,  and  satisfy  our  citizens  for  spoliations 
committed  on  them  during  peace  by  Great  Britain.  We 
demanded  indemnity  for  these  spoliations  in  negotiating  the 
treaty  of  Ghent.  Our  Ministers  were  repeatedly  instructed 
on  the  subject.  We  presented  our  claims  to  the  British 
commissioners,  and  we  abandoned  them  when  we  found 
them  hopeless.  Or,  to  use  the  language  by  which  the 
claim  before  us  is  sought  to  be  enforced,  these  indemnities 
were  "  released "  to  Great  Britain  "  for  the  valuable  con- 
sideration "  of  peace.  We  should,  according  to  every  prin- 
ciple of  equity,  satisfy  these  last  claims  first.  Under  the 
convention  of  1803  with  France,  our  citizens  were  paid 
nearly  four  millions  of  dollars  on  account  of  claims  on 
France  prior  to  1800.  Under  the  convention  of  1881, 
they  received  over  four  millions  and  a  half  more  for  spo- 
liations subsequently  to  1800.  In  all,  we  have  obtained 
from  France  by  negotiation,  and  paid  to  our  citizens,  about 
eight  millions  and  a  half  of  dollars.  From  Great  Britain 
I  am  not  aware  that  we  have  obtained  anything,  since  the 
treaty  of  1794*5  on  account  of  claims  for  spoliations,  not- 
withstanding the  aggravated  injuries  she  has  committed  on 
our  citizens,  excepting  for  abducted  slaves  under  the  treaty 
of  Ghent.  But  I  hold  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  is  exonerated,  in  both  instances,  by  a  faithful  and 
zealous  discharge  of  its  duty, — first,  by  Negotiation,  and, 
second,  by  a  resort  to  force. 


THE  WAREHOUSE  SYSTEM. 


Propositions  to  establish  a  warehouse  system,  under  which  goods 
imported  into  the  United  States  from  foreign  countries  might  be  stored 
without  payment  of  duty  until  withdrawn  for  consumption,  had  been 
for  several  years  before  Congress.  The  bills  making  provision  for  the 
purpose  were  long  and  complicated,  embarrassing  the  discussion  and 
endangering  the  success  of  the  measure  by  complexity  of  detail.  To 
avoid  these  difficulties,  Mr.  Dix  introduced  a  bill  securing  all  the 
objects  in  view  by  a  simple  amendment  of  a  single  section  of  an  Act 
then  in  force,  and  it  passed  through  both  Houses  and  became  a  law  at 
the  same  session.  The  speech  which  follows  was  intended  to  explain 
the  bill,  and  was  delivered  on  the  l9th  of  June,  1846. 

Mr.  President:  The  bill  under  consideration  was  re- 
ported to  the  Senate  from  the  Committee  on  Commerce, 
under  a  resolution  instructing  them  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  establishing  a  warehouse  system,  and  giving 
them  authority  to  report  by  bill.  The  committee  having 
charged  me  with  the  introduction  of  the  bill,  it  devolves 
on  me  to  explain  its  provisions,  to  point  out  its  objects, 
and  to  show  in  what  respects  it  modifies  existing  laws. 

The  bill  is  designed  by  the  committee  to  respond  af- 
firmatively to  the  inquiry  they  were  instructed  to  make. 
It  is  true,  it  does  not  provide  specifically  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  warehouse  system ;  but  it  aims  to  accom- 
plish all  the  objects  of  such  a  system,  by  extending  the 
provisions  of  existing  laws  in  relation  to  the  storage  and 
final  disposal  of  imported  merchandise.  They  have  given 
it  the  greatest  possible  simplicity  in  form.  They  have  not 
deemed  it  expedient  to  recommend  a  complex  system. 
They  have  aimed  to  introduce  no  principles  wholly  new  or 
untried.      They  have  made  the  system  they   propose    con- 


THE   WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  105 

form  as  nearly  as  practicable  to  the  provisions  of  existing 
laws.  They  have  founded  it  on  enactments  now  in  force 
and  in  daily  and  familiar  operation,  —  enactments  of  which 
the  meaning  and  application  have  been  settled  by  construc- 
tion and  practice.  The  bill  consists  of  an  amendment  of 
a  single  section  —  the  ISth  section  —  of  the  act  of  the 
80th  of  Augustj  1S4<2,  commonly  called  the  tariff  act. 
It  is  almost  a  transcript  of  that  section  and  the  thirteenth. 
The  amendments,  though  important,  are  all  comprised  within 
the  compass  of  a  few  lines.  Thus,  Senators  will  perceive 
that  the  proposed  measure  will  be  presented  for  their  con- 
sideration in  the  most  simple  shape,  and  that  the  exami- 
nation which  the  importance  of  the  subject  demands  may 
be  carried  on,  without  embarrassing  their  attention  by  com- 
plexity of  details. 

The  first  observation  which  I  deem  it  proper  to  make 
in  connection  with  the  general  policy  of  the  measure  is, 
that  the  warehouse  system  is  actually  in  existence,  though 
on  a  very  narrow  basis,  and  in  a  very  imperfect  form. 
Indeed,  I  believe  there  has  been  no  period  from  the  foun- 
dation of  our  revenue  system  when  it  was  not  in  opera- 
tion in  some  shape  or  other,  and  under  certain  limitations. 

It  will,  in  fact,  be  necessary,  in  order  to  show  to  what 
extent  it  is  in  force,  to  go  back  to  the  general  revenue 
act  of  the  2d  March,  1799,  "to  regulate  the  collection 
of  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage." 

The  56th  section  of  that  act,  which'  is  still  in  force 
with  some  modifications,  provides,  that,  after  the  expiration 
of  fifteen  working-days  from  the  time  prescribed  for  re- 
porting a  vessel,  if  any  goods  shall  be  found  on  board, 
other  than  such  as  were  reported  for  entry  in  another  col- 
lection district,  or  some  foreign  port,  they  shall  be  taken 
possession  of,  and  stored  under  the  order  of  the  collector. 
The  same  section  also  provides,  that,  after  five  days'  notice 
to  the  collector,  any  goods  may  be  so  taken  and  stored, 
with  the  consent  of  the  owner  or  consignee,  or  the  master 
14 


106  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

of  the  vessel.  By  the  act  of  3d  March,  1821,  the  time 
allowed  for  unlading  vessels  exceeding  three  hundred  tons 
burden  is  extended  from  fifteen  to  twenty  working-days ; 
and  by  a  proviso  in  the  56th  section  of  the  act  of  1799, 
which  I  am  now  examining,  the  fifteen  working-days  origi- 
nally allowed  may  be  extended  by  the  collector  fifteen  days 
more  for  vessels  laden  with  salt  or  coal. 

The  act  of  1799,  like  all  the  early  acts  regulating  the 
collection  of  duties,  gave  a  credit  to  the  importer  where 
the  duties  chargeable  on  imported  merchandise  exceeded  a 
certain  amount.  If  the  duties  did  not  exceed  fifty  dollars, 
they  were  required  by  that  act  to  be  paid  in  cash;  and 
by  the  act  of  the  14th  July,  1882,  cash  payments  were 
exacted  for  duties  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars.  On 
all  sums  exceeding  these  amounts,  the  importer  took  the 
goods  and  gave  his  bond,  payable  at  periods  varying  from 
three  to  twelve  months,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
merchandise  and  the  countries  from  which  it  was  im- 
ported. This  was  the  general  system.  There  was  an 
exception  in  the  case  of  teas,  which  were  allowed  to  be 
deposited  in  stores  agreed  on  by  the  importer  and  in- 
spector of  the  revenue,  —  bonds  without  sureties  being 
taken,  in  double  the  amount  of  the  duties,  payable  in  two 
years.  And  there  was  also  a  general  provision  authoriz- 
ing collectors  to  receive  goods  in  deposit,  by  way  of  se- 
curing the  payment  of  duties,  as  a  substitute  for  sureties 
on  bonds.  For  instance,  if  the  importer  preferred  not  to 
give  sureties,  he  was  allowed  to  give  his  own  bond  and 
take  his  merchandise,  depositing  with  the  collector  a  suflRcient 
quantity  to  insure  the  payment  of  the  duties  on  the  whole. 

Under  the  system  of  credits  thus  established,  there  was 
no  strong  inducement  to  place  goods  in  store  pursuant  to 
the  provisions  of  the  56th  section  of  the  act  of  1799. 
Such  as  were  found  on  board  vessels  after  the  time  speci- 
fied for  unlading,  were  usually  small  in  quantity  and  not  ( 
of  great  value.      Under    the  proviso  of  the  56th  section. 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  IO7 

which  I  have  referred  to,  authorizing  goods  to  be  received 
in  store  after  five  days'  notice,  with  the  consent  of  the 
owner,  I  beheve  it  was,  and  still  is,  the  practice  for  ves- 
sels in  haste  to  enter  on  the  return  voyage,  and  especially 
packets,  to  be  put  on  what  is  called  the  five  days'  order, 
for  the  purpose  of  unlading  and  sending  their  cargoes  to 
the  public  stores  without  waiting  for  them  to  be  appraised, 
weighed,  measured,  and  gauged. 

Goods  thus  deposited  were,  by  the  provisions  of  the 
56th  section,  permitted  to  remain  in  store  for  the  term  of 
nine  months,  unless  the  duties  chargeable  on  them  became 
payable  in  a  shorter  period ;  and  in  this  case  a  sufficient 
quantity  was  allowed  to  be  sold  to  realize  the  duties  when 
they  were  due.  The  residue  was  to  be  sold  at  the  end 
of  the  nine  months,  with  the  addition  of  one  month  pre- 
scribed for  advertising  them.  So  that,  with  the  nine 
months  allowed  for  retaining  goods  in  store,  one  month 
for  advertising,  twenty  days  for  unlading,  and  unavoidable 
delays,  it  rarely  happened  that  goods  charged  with  duties 
payable  in  nine  months  were  sold  in  less  than  a  year. 
Before  goods  were  sold,  they  were  required  to  be  appraised 
by  two  or  more  reputable  merchants,  and  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale,  after  deducting  the  duties  and  charges,  were  paid 
into  the  treasury  of  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the 
owner,  upon  proof  of  his  right  to  receive  them. 

Such  was  the  warehouse  system  as  it  existed  under  the 
earliest  revenue  laws.  The  system  of  credits  established 
by  the  same  laws,  and  the  limited  time  for  the  deposit 
of  merchandise,  rendered  it  of  no  great  practical  impor- 
tance as  an  instrument  of  commerce.  I  call  it  a  ware- 
house system,  though  it  may  be  deemed  unworthy  of  the 
name,  as  its  object  was,  chiefly,  the  convenience  of  the 
commercial  community. 

The  ISth  section  of  the  act  of  the  30th  August, 
1842,  requires  the  duties  on  all  imported  merchandise  to 
be  paid  in  cash.     The  act  of   1799  required  duties  to  be 


108  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

paid,  or  secured  to  be  paid,  before  a  permit  for  landing 
them  was  granted.  But,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  the 
duties  were,  it  was  necessary,  as  a  general  rule,  to  cause 
the  goods  to  be  weighed,  gauged,  measured,  and  some- 
times sent  to  the  public  stores  to  be  appraised.  The  ne- 
cessity of  the  case,  therefore,  established  this  construction 
of  the  law,  which  has  existed  from  the  earliest  period,  — 
that  its  requirements  are  sufficiently  complied  with  if  the 
importer  pays  the  duties  regularly  ascertained,  or  secures 
them  when  estimated,  before  he  obtains  possession  of  the 
goods  on  which  they  are  charged.  This  practice  exists, 
and  must  always  exist,  under  any  system  of  cash  duties.  It 
existed  when  the  cash  system  was  partial,  when  it  was  made 
universal,  and  it  exists  still.  Under  the  cash  system,  then, 
the  duties  must  be  paid  or  deposited  before  the  goods  go 
into  the  possession  of  the  owner.  Under  the  credit  system, 
the  owner  obtained  possession  of  his  goods  on  giving  his 
bond  for  the  payment  of  the  duties  at  a  future  day. 

The  l^th  section  of  the  act  of  1842,  after  exacting  the 
payment  of  duties  in  cash,  provides,  that  "  in  all  cases  of 
failure  or  neglect  to  pay  the  duties,  on  completion  of  the 
entry,"  the  goods  "  shall  be  taken  possession  of  by  the 
collector,  and  deposited  in  the  public  stores."  When  so 
deposited,  they  are  to  be  kept  at  the  charge  and  risk  of 
the  owner;  and  if  the  duties  are  not  paid  in  sixty  days, 
(or  ninety  days  if  imported  from  beyond  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope,)  the  goods,  or  a  sufficient  amount  to  pay  the 
duties,  are  required  to  be  sold  at  auction,  after  an  appraise- 
ment by  the  general  appraisers.  If  the  owner  does  not 
claim  the  residue,  they  are  to  be  redeposited,  and  disposed 
of  under  the  18th  section  of  the  same  act,  the  provisions 
of  which  I  shall  explain.  The  time  of  advertising  before 
a  sale  is  prescribed  by  the  Treasury  Department,  and  has 
been  fixed  at  thirty  days,  as  under  the  act  of  1799. 

Such  is  the  warehouse  system,  if  it  can  be  so  called, 
existing  under  the  12th  section  of  the  act  of  the  30th  of 


THE   WAREHOUSE    SYSTEM.  109 

August,  1842;  and  it  will  be  perceived  that  it  differs  from 
that  established  by  the  act  of  1799  in  many  essential 
particulars. 

1.  By  the  act  of  1842,  the  maximum  time  during  which 
goods  are  allowed  to  remain  in  store  before  a  sale  to  realize 
the  duties  is  reduced  from  nine  months  to  sixty  or  ninety 
days. 

2.  Under  the  act  of  1799,  the  appraisement  was  required 
to  be  made  by  two  or  more  reputable  merchants.  Under 
the  12th  section  of  the  act  of  1842,  no  special  apprais- 
ers are  named,  and  it  is,  therefore,  construed  to  intend 
the  general  appraisers,  —  the  official  persons  appointed  un- 
der the  general  law.  The  appraisement  is  accordingly 
made  by  them. 

8.  Under  the  act  of  1799,  all  the  goods  were  to  be 
sold  at  the  end  of  nine  months.  Under  the  12th  section 
of  the  act  of  1842,  only  a  sufficient  quantity  is  to  be 
sold,  at  the  end  of  sixty  or  ninety  days,  to  pay  the  duties, 
charges,  and  interest. 

4.  Under  the  56th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  the 
overplus  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale,  after  paying  the 
duties  and  charges,  was  to  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of 
the  United  States,  for  the  use  of  the  owner.  Under  the 
12th  section  of  the  act  of  1842,  the  residue  of  the  goods, 
after  selling  a  sufficient  quantity  to  pay  duties,  interest,  and 
charges,  is  to  be  delivered  to  the  owner,  if  claimed  by  him ; 
or  if  not  claimed,  to  be  redeposited  in  store. 

5.  The  act  of  1799  required  an  inventory  and  appraise- 
ment of  the  goods  before  a  sale.  The  act  of  1842  requires, 
in  addition,  that  distinct  and  printed  catalogues  descriptive 
of  the  goods,  with  the  appraised  value  annexed,  shall  be 
distributed  among  the  persons  present  at  the  sale,  and  a 
reasonable  opportunity  given  to  purchasers  to  inspect  the 
quality  of  the  goods.  These  additional  requirements  are 
of  great  importance.  Under  the  old  system,  these  sales 
were  ordinarily  mere  package  sales.     The  officers  of  the 


no  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

customs  and  persons  in  their  confidence  might  know  all 
about  the  goods  to  be  sold,  while  the  purchasers  could  know 
very  little  about  them,  thus  opening  a  wide  door  to  collusion 
and  fraud. 

There  are  other  differences  of  minor  importance  *  not 
necessary  to  be   specified. 

The  13th  section  of  the  act  of  80th  August,  184S, 
differs  materially  from  the  12th.  and  is,  in  its  general 
provisions,  more  analogous  to  the  56th  section  of  the  act 
of  1799.  The  appraisement  is  required  to  be  made  by 
two  or  more  respectable  merchants,  and  all  the  goods  are 
required  to  be  sold.  This  section,  at  first  glance,  appears 
to  have  been  specially  framed  for  the  purpose  of  finally 
disposing  of  all  unclaimed  goods,  in  whatever  manner 
they  may  have  found  their  way  into  the  public  stores; 
but,  by  a  construction  of  the  Treasury  Department  of 
the  11th  July,  184<5,  it  is  decided  to  embrace  only  such 
goods*  as  are  redeposited  in  store  under  the  preceding 
section,  after  a  partial  sale  to  realize  the  duties,  or  such 
as  are  liable  for  charges  of  storage,  &c.  The  time  during 
which  goods  may  remain  in  store  under  this  section  is 
fixed  by  the  56th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  which  is 
in  this  respect  unrepealed,  and  the  sales  accordingly  take 
place  once  in  nine  months. 

In  all  cases,  both  under  the  acts  of .  1799  and  1842, 
there  is  a  provision  for  the  speedy  sale  of  perishable  goods : 
a  provision  equally  important  to  the  government,  in  order 
that  the  duties  may  be  realized  before  the  goods  become 
worthless,  and  to  the  owner,  who  may  not  always  know 
that  his  goods  are  in  store,  and  who  might,  without  such 
a  provision,  lose  their  entire  value. 

I  have  thus  stated  the  provisions  of  existing  laws  in 
relation  to  the  storage  and  final  disposal  of  imported  goods 
in  all  cases  of  a  failure  or  neglect  to  pay  the  duties  charge- 
able on  them,  and  of  goods  unclaimed  by  the  owners 
within    the  time  limited  for  retaining  them  in   store.     A 


THE   WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  HI 

comparison  of  the  act  of  1799,  in  respect  to  the  storage 
of  goods,  with  the  act  of  1842,  will  show  the  latter  to 
be  much  more  stringent  in  its  provisions.  It  diminishes 
the  time  during  which  the  goods  are  allowed  to  remain 
in  store  from  nine  months  to  sixty  and  ninety  days,  and 
it  exacts  interest  on  the  duties  from  the  date  of  the  entry 
of  the  goods  on  which  they  are  chargeable. 

The  tariff  act  of  1842  introduced  the  most  thorough 
revolution  in  this  department  of  the  revenue  system  of 
the  United  States  which  has  been  known  since  the  foun- 
dation of  the  government,  by  abandoning  the  old  plan  of 
giving  credit  for  duties,  and  requiring  them  to  be  paid  in 
cash  for  the  largest  as  well  as  the  smallest  sums.  The' 
old  system  gave  a  credit  for  duties,  without  exacting  interest 
during  the  period  for  which  the  credit  was  granted.  Under 
the  act  of  1842,  if  there  is  a  failure  or  an  omission  to 
pay  the  duties  on  imported  merchandise  on  the  completion 
of  the  entry,  interest  is  charged  from  the  day  the  duties 
accrue,  and  the  importer  pays  it  with  the  duties  when  he 
claims  the  goods ;  or  if,  in  default  of  voluntary  payment 
by  the  importer,  a  sale  takes  place,  the  interest  is  added 
to  the  duties,  and  the  amount,  together  with  the  charges 
for  storage,  &c.,  is  realized  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sale. 

I  desire  to  say  here,  Mr.  President,  to  avoid  misappre- 
hension, that  I  am  aware  of  the  provision  in  the  tariff  act 
of  1838,  or  the  Compromise  act,  as  it  is  called,  requiring 
duties  to  be  paid  in  ready  money;  but  this  provision  did 
not  go  into  effect  until  the  1st  of  July,  1842;  and  by 
the  same  act  all  duties  were  reduced  to  twenty  per  cent, 
on  the  same  day,  while  the  more  liberal  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1799,  in  respect  to  the  storage  of  goods,  if  I  am 
not  mistaken,  remained  in  force.  I  also  desire  to  say  that 
I  have  not  overlooked  the  partial  provision  in  the  act  of 
1832,  requiring  duties  on  woollens  to  be  paid  in  cash,  or, 
if  stored,  exacting  interest  on  the  duties. 

The  introduction  of  cash  payments  for  duties,  though  I 


21£  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

believe  it  is  generally  conceded  to  have  operated  favorably  as 
far  as  the  Government  is  concerned,  so  much  so  that  few, 
if  any,  are  desirous  of  disturbing  it,  at  least  by  reinstating 
the  old  system  of  credits,  bears  heavily  on  the  mercantile 
interest  in  comparison  with  the  latter.  The  forbearance 
of  payment  by  the  Government  was,  in  practice,  equivalent 
to  a  cash  capital  for  the  merchant  to  the  amount  of  the 
duties  during  the  time  for  which  the  credit  or  forbearance 
of  payment  was  granted.  It  was,  unquestionably,  a  valu- 
able mercantile  facility  for  those  who  had  the  benefit  of  it, 
and  the  discretion  to  employ  it  judiciously.  But  it  had  its 
public  inconveniences,  and  it  was  very  properly  abolished. 
It  was,  however,  foreseen  and  foretold  at  the  time  the 
change  was  made,  that  great  hardship  would  be  likely  to 
result  from  it,  unless  provision  was  made  for  storing  goods 
for  a  limited  period,  and  forbearing  during  that  period  to 
exact  the  payment  of  the  duties.  But  it  is  a  singular  fact, 
and  one  which  is  not  easily  to  be  accounted  for  on  any  prin- 
ciple of  public  utility  or  convenience,  that,  when  the  extraor- 
dinary and  violent  transition  took  place  from  credits  to  cash 
payments,  the  maximum  time  during  which  merchandise  was 
allowed  to  remain  in  store,  before  a  sale  to  realize  the  du- 
ties, instead  of  being  enlarged,  as  one  would  suppose  it 
should  have  been,  or  at  least  continued  as  it  then  existed, 
was  actually  reduced,  as  has  been  seen,  from  nine  months 
to  one  third  of  that  period,  and  for  most  merchandise  to  a 
still  shorter  time.  The  change  took  place,  too,  at  the  very 
moment  when  the  rates  of  duty  were  enormously  increased 
on  a  large  class  of  imports  from  twenty  per  cent.,  the 
maximum  under  the  Compromise  act  of  1888.  The  strin- 
gent measure  of  cash  payment  was  rendered  more  stringent 
by  a  simultaneous  increase  of  the  rates  of  duty,  and  by 
depriving  the  importer,  to  a  great  extent,  of  the  facility  of 
placing  his  goods  in  store,  if  the  importation  should  find 
him  unprepared  to  pay  the  duties  in  cash.  This  privilege, 
which,  under  the  system  of  credits,  was  of  no  great  prac- 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  113 

tical  benefit  in  extensive  operations,  would,  under  the  system 
of  cash  payments,  have  been  a  facility  of  considerable  value 
to  importers  of  moderate  means,  and  would  have  enabled 
them  to  contend,  in  a  limited  field  at  least,  with  large  cap- 
italists, who,  if  general  opinion  be  true,  have  now  engrossed, 
in  a  great  measure,  the  business  of  importation,  and  will 
continue  to  do  so,  under  existing  laws,  from  their  ability  to 
furnish  readily  the  means  of  meeting  the  payment  of  duties 
in  cash  on  large  cargoes.  Still,  if  the  time  allowed  for  mer- 
chandise to  remain  in  store  under  the  act  of  1799  had  not 
been  diminished,  it  would  have  been  too  limited  to  accom- 
plish all  the  objects  anticipated  from  a  warehousing  system, 
especially  so  far  as  such  a  system  may  lead  to  the  storage 
of  goods  for  exportation. 

I  will  now  state  wherein  the  bill  before  the  Senate  pro- 
poses to  amend  existing  laws,  pointing  out  as  I  proceed 
in  what  respects  it  will  change  the  practical  operation  of 
the  present  system ;  and  I  shall  conclude  by  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  the  advantages  expected  to  result  from  it.  I  have 
already  said  that  the  bill  is,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
amendments,  a  transcript  of  the  ISth  and  18th  sections  of 
the  act  of  80th  August,  184S;  and  in  stating  and  explaining 
the  amendments,  I  shall  cover  all  the  ground  which  is  new. 

The  first  amendment  proposed  is,  to  allow  goods  to 
remain  in  store  for  a  period  not  less  than  two,  nor  more 
than  three  years,  as  Congress  may  determine,  instead  of 
sixty  and  ninety  days,  with  the  privilege  of  withdrawing 
them  at  any  time  during  that  period  on  the  payment  of 
duties  and  charges.  This  amendment  embraces  two  new 
provisions:  1st,  an  extension  of  the  time  during  which 
goods  are  permitted  to  remain  in  store;  and,  2d,  a  remis- 
sion of  the  interest  now  exacted  on  the  duties  from  the  date 
of  the  entry  to  the  time  of  withdrawing  from  the  public 
stores  the  merchandise  on  which  they  are  charged.  These 
provisions  are  so  distinct  in  character  that  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  consider  them  separately. 
15 


X14,  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

1.  As  to  the  extension  of  time.  —  The  Senate  will  peH 
ceive  that  the  number  of  years  during  which  the  bill  pn 
poses  to  allow  goods  to  remain  in  store  is  left  in  blanki 
I  will,  at  a  proper  time,  move  to  fill  the  blank  with  threi 
years,  though  I  am  not  authorized  to  say  that  I  shall 
sustained  in  this  motion  by  the  judgment  of  the  committer 
There  are,  in  my  view  of  the  subject,  some  strong  consid- 
erations in  favor  of  selecting  that  period  of  time.  It  is  the 
period  fixed  by  the  British  system,  which  has  been  in  suc- 
cessful operation  for  more  than  forty  years ;  and  it  may  be 
reasonably  supposed  that,  after  so  full  a  trial,  it  has  been 
selected  from  considerations  of  its  convenience  for  commer- 
cial purposes.  But  it  is  not  for  this  reason  alone.  The  term 
of  three  years  is  the  period  during  which  imported  goods 
may,  under  existing  laws,  be  entered  for  exportation  with 
the  privilege  of  drawback ;  and  the  term  thus  fixed  in  one 
case  would  seem  to  indicate  a  proper  limitation  in  the  other ; 
especially  as  storing  goods  for  exportation  will,  in  all  proba- 
bility, become  a  very  important  and  extensive  branch  of 
business,  if  this  bill  should  become  a  law.  Should  the  Sen- 
ate be  of  the  opinion  that  the  term  of  three  years  is  too 
long,  and  that  a  shorter  period  is  dictated  by  any  urgent 
considerations  of  public  convenience  or  utility,  I  can  only 
say  that  I  shall  submit  cheerfully  to  its  better  judgment, 
but  with  the  strong  hope  that  a  less  time  than  two  years 
will  not  be  thought  of,  as  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  it  is 
the  least  which  would  be  sufficient  to  accomplish  effectually 
the  objects  in  view.  Commercial  and  financial  reactions  are 
not  supposed  ordinarily  to  run  their  course  in  much  less 
time ;  and  if  that  period  is  allowed  for  goods  to  remain 
in  store,  the  owner  will  be  able  to  avoid  the  inconvenience 
and  loss  on  the  one  hand  of  reexporting  them  unnecessarily, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  sacrifice  of  throwing  them  upon  the 
domestic  market  when  the  demand  is  limited,  or  the  abil- 
ity to  purchase  impaired  by  derangements  in  the  pecuniary 
or  mercantile  transactions  of  the  country. 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  115 

2.  As  to  the  remission  of  the  interest.  —  Interest  is  now 
exacted  on  the  duties  from  the  date  of  the  entry  of  the 
merchandise  on  which  they  are  charged  to  the  time  when 
the  duties  are  paid.  The  proposed  amendment  proceeds 
upon  the  principle  of  requiring  the  owner  or  importer  of 
foreign  merchandise  to  pay  the  impost  when  the  merchandise 
is  wanted  for  consumption.  If  he  pays  the  duties  on  the 
entry,  and  is  compelled  to  keep  the  goods  on  hand  because 
he  cannot  sell  them  advantageously  or  without  loss,  the  gov- 
ernment has  the  use  of  the  money  paid  for  the  duties, 
though  the  merchandise  has  not  been  used  for  the  benefit 
of  the  owner,  while  the  latter  is  also  paying  or  losing  in- 
terest on  the  amount  of  the  duties  he  has  advanced  to  the 
government.  In  like  manner,  if  a  merchant  imports  goods, 
pays  duties  on  the  entry,  and  is  compelled  to  keep  the 
goods  on  hand,  they  become  constantly  enhanced  in  cost, 
not  only  by  an  accumulation  of  interest  on  the  purchase- 
money,  but  of  interest  on  the  duties.  Cases  of  this  descrip- 
tion are  undoubtedly  of  frequent  occurrence ;  and  I  advert 
to  them  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  injustice,  the  illib- 
erality,  not  only  of  exacting  the  payment  of  duties  before 
the  merchandise  on  which  they  are  chargeable  is  required 
for  consumption,  or  before  the  importer  can  make  any  ad- 
vantageous use  of  it,  but  of  exacting  interest  on  the  duties 
also.  The  government,  by  so  doing,  derives  a  profit  from 
the  merchant  without  any  corresponding  benefit  to  the  latter. 
Under  the  system  of  credits,  coeval  with  the  foundation  of 
the  government,  the  merchant  was  allowed  to  take  his  goods 
into  his  own  possession,  by  giving  security  for  the  payment 
of  the  duties,  without  interest,  at  a  future  day ;  and  during 
the  period  allowed  for  the  credit  to  run  he  could  always 
dispose  at  least  of  a  sufficient  amount  of  the  goods  to  meet 
the  payment  of  his  bonds.  It  was,  as  I  have  already  said, 
a  most  valuable  pecuniary  facility  to  the  mercantile  commu- 
nity, though  having  an  inherent  tendency  to  run  into  excess, 
and  to  stimulate  and  extend  injuriously  the  operations  of 


116  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

business.  The  remission  of  interest  on  the  duties,  from  the 
entry  of  goods  to  the  time  when  the  duties  are  paid,  does 
not,  strictly  speaking",  extend  a  facility  to  the  importer  or 
merchant.  It  merely  abstains  from  imposing  a.  burden,  — 
from  exacting  what  is  unreasonable  and  unjust,  —  a  profit 
to  the  government  without  any  corresponding  advantage 
to  him.  It  allows  him  to  take  his  goods  from  the  public 
stores  when  he  wants  them,  by  paying  the  charges  of  stor- 
age, &c.,  and  the  duties,  without  exacting  interest  on  the 
latter  for  the  period  the  goods  have  been  in  store.  The 
principle  seems  so  obviously  just  that  I  will  not  pursue  the 
argument  further. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add,  however,  that  the  system  of 
cash  payments  proceeds  upon  the  principle  of  requiring 
the  importer  to  pay  the  duties  when  the  merchandise  goes 
into  his  possession ;  and  this  is  the  only  material  point  in 
which  it  differs  from  the  old  system  of  credits.  The  non- 
exaction  of  interest  on  the  duties  does  not  affect  this  prin- 
ciple. Imported  goods,  as  long  as  they  are  deposited  in 
store,  are  a  security  to  the  government  for  the  payment 
of  the  duties  chargeable  on  them.  The  payment  of  the  im- 
post is  exacted  when  the  goods  are  withdrawn,  and  go  into 
the  importer's  possession;  and  thus  the  great  principle  on 
which  the  system  of  cash  payments  proceeds  is  preserved 
inviolate. 

The  observations  I  have  made  are  confined  to  the  policy 
of  extending  the  period  of  time  during  which  goods  are 
allowed  to  remain  in  the  public  stores,  without  calling  for 
the  payment  of  duties,  and  of  allowing  them  to  be  with- 
drawn for  consumption,  or  domestic  use,  on  paying  the 
charges  and  the  duties  without  interest.  These  points  em- 
brace the  whole  of  the  first  proposed  amendment. 

I  proceed  now  to  the  second  amendment,  which  is  to 
allow  goods  at  any  time  during  the  period  limited  for  keep- 
ing them  in  store  to  be  taken  out  for  reexportation  on  the 
payment  of  all  charges.     This  amendment  is  a  substitute  for 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  Hy 

that  part  of  the  existing-  revenue  system  which  exacts  two 
and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  amount  of  the  duties  paid  by  the 
owner  of  the  merchandise  when  he  imports  it,  and  refunded 
to  him  when  it  is  reexported.  The  government,  in  other 
words,  in  refunding  the  duties  to  the  importer,  retains  two 
and  a  half  per  cent,  of  the  amount  for  its  own  use.  The 
amount  retained  was  originally  one  per  cent.,  as  may  be  seen 
by  a  reference  to  section  thirty-one  of  the  act  of  81st  July, 

1789,  and  section  fifty-seven  of  the  act  of  the  4th  August, 

1790.  An  addition  of  one  quarter  per  cent,  was  made  by 
the  act  of  March  19,  1798,  as  a  substitute  for  certain  stamp- 
duties  on  debentures,  which  were  repealed  by  the  same  act; 
and  by  the  act  of  30th  May,  1800,  an  addition  of  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  was  made  for  the  same  purpose  ;  so  that  the 
amount  retained  was  at  one  time  three  and  three  quarters 
per  cent.  But  these  provisions  were  all  superseded  by  the 
tariff*  act  of  1816,  which  reduced  the  deduction  to  two  and 
a  half  per  cent.  In  18£9  all  deduction  was  abandoned; 
and  from  that  time  until  184^,  the  whole  amount  of  the 
duties  paid  on  the  importation  of  foreign  merchandise  was 
refunded  on  its  exportation.  But  now,  by  the  15th  section 
of  the  act  of  80th  August,  1842,  the  amount  of  the  deduc- 
tion is  fixed  at  two  and  a  half  per  cent.,  except  in  the 
reexportation  of  foreign  refined  sugars,  in  which  case  the 
amount  retained  is  ten  per  cent,  on  the  duties  paid.  The 
amount  thus  deducted  by  the  United  States  in  paying  back 
the  duties  received  on  foreign  merchandise  in  case  of  its 
reexportation  was  originally,  as  is  perceived,  very  small  (but 
one  per  cent.);  and  the  two  second  acts  to  which  I  have 
referred  —  adding  two  per  cent,  and  three  quarters  to  the 
amount  as  a  substitute  for  stamp-duties  on  debentures  — 
show  that  the  object  was  to  indemnify  the  government  for 
the  inconvenience  and  expense  to  which  it  was  subjected. 
But  the  object  is  directly  or  indirectly  shown  by  all  the  early 
laws  as  well  as  the  early  reports  in  respect  to  the  revenue 
system. 


118  SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 

Under  existing  laws  there  is  no  very  perceptible  want  oi 
equity  in  this  exaction,  for  the  reason  that  it  does  not  take 
the  form  of  a  direct  payment  to  the  government.  But 
under  the  proposed  bill,  and  with  the  extension  of  the 
period  allowed  for  keeping  goods  in  store,  the  exaction  of 
a  payment  equal  to  the  same  proportion  of  the  amount  of 
duties  chargeable  on  them  in  all  cases,  without  reference  to 
the  time  during  which  the  goods  have  been  stored,  would  be 
illiberal  and  impolitic.  The  exaction  was  not  designed  as  a 
source  of  revenue  to  the  government,  much  less  as  a  dis- 
couragement to  the  reexportation  of  imported  goods.  Its 
purpose,  was  what  I  have  stated,  to  indemnify  the  govern- 
ment for  the  inconvenience  and  expense  of  administering  the 
system  of  debentures.  Under  any  other  view  of  the  subject 
it  could  only  be  considered  as  an  unreasonable  imposition  on 
commerce,  and  especially  that  branch  of  commerce  in  which 
the  country  is  so  deeply  concerned  —  the  carrying  trade. 

The  bill  under  consideration  proposes  to  lay  aside  this 
exaction  entirely,  returning  to  the  more  liberal  provisions  of 
former  laws ;  and,  as  a  substitute  for  it,  to  require  only  the 
payment  of  the  actual  charges  and  expenses  incurred  while 
the  goods  are  stored.  By  this  provision,  the  interest  of  the 
government  will  be  fully  protected,  and  the  charges  paid  by 
the  importer  will  bear  a  just  proportion  to  the  time  he  has 
enjoyed  the  benefit  of  the  legal  provision  under  which  his 
goods  have  been  held  in  store.  Under  the  proposed  system, 
the  exaction,  if  it  were  continued,  would  become  a  mere 
premium  paid  to  the  government  for  the  privilege  of  export- 
ing foreign  merchandise  for  which  there  was  no  demand  at 
home. 

If  the  exaction  were,  as  it  now  is,  in  the  shape  of  a  deduc- 
tion by  the  government  from  duties  actually  paid,  its  true 
character  would  be  less  apparent  than  when  the  exaction 
takes  the  form  of  an  actual  payment  by  the  importer  on  an 
estimated  amount  of  duties  which  the  government  has  never 
received.     The  last  case  would  always  occur  under  the  pro- 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  II9 

posed  system,  if  it  should  be  adopted,  as  the  goods  would  lie 
in  store  without  any  payment  of  duties;  and,  in  case  of  reex- 
portation, it  would  be  necessary  to  assume  as  a  basis  the 
amount  of  the  duties  which  the  merchandise  would  have 
paid  if  it  had  been  entered  for  domestic  consumption,  and  to 
exact  from  the  owner  the  payment  of  a  given  proportion  of 
that  amount  as  a  charge  for  the  privilege  of  reexporting  it. 
Such  a  charge  is  deemed  an  illiberal  imposition  on  com- 
merce ;  and  the  bill  therefore  proposes  to  allow  merchan- 
dise, during  the  time  it  is  permitted  to  remain  in  store,  to  be 
withdrawn  for  exportation,  under  the  existing  legal  provis- 
ions in  respect  to  drawbacks,  upon  a  payment  of  actual 
expenses,  including  the  customary  charge  for  storage. 

The  third  amendment  is  one  on  which  only  a  single 
remark  is  necessary.  The  12th  section  of  the  act  of  1842 
provides  for  a  sale  of  such  quantities  of  the  goods  deposited 
in  store  as  shall  be  necessary  to  pay  the  duties,  and  directs 
the  goods  unsold  to  be  restored ;  and  if  unclaimed  for  nine 
months,  they  are  liable  to  be  sold  for  storage,  under  section 
thirteen  of  the  same  act,  after  the  expiration  of  that  period. 
The  proposed  amendment,  for  obvious  reasons,  contemplates 
one  sale  of  all  the  goods  at  the  expiration  of  the  period 
allowed  for  keeping  them  in  store,  and  adopts  the  require- 
ments of  section  thirteen  in  respect  to  the  formalities  of  the 
sale,  and  the  payment  of  the  surplus  of  the  proceeds  into  the 
treasury  of  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the  owner. 
The  propriety  of  making  a  final  disposition  by  sale  of  all 
goods  which  have  been  stored  for  the  term  of  two  or  three 
years,  in  case  this  period  shall  be  fixed,  is  too  manifest  to 
need  illustration. 

Another  provision,  which  is  entirely  new,  requires  a  pass- 
ing notice.  Perishable  goods  are  required  to  be  sold  forth- 
with, as  under  existing  laws ;  but  with  them  are  classed,  for 
the  purpose  of  an  immediate  sale,  gunpowder,  fire-crackers, 
and  explosive  substances.  The  danger  in  large  cities  from 
the  accumulation  of  such  substances,  especially  when  depos- 


1£0 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


ited  in  the  same  stores  with  property  of  great  value, 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  demand  some  effectual  preventive^ 
They  are  not  imported  in  large  quantities;  and  there  will 
no  individual  hardship,  in  the  few  instances  in  which  a  com^ 
pulsory  sale  is  likely  to  take  place,  at  all  comparable  wit 
the  risk  which  would  be  incurred  by  the  public  in  admitting 
them  to  the  benefit  of  the  w^arehouse  system. 

I  believe  I  have  now  stated  the  general  provisions  of  the 
proposed  bill,  and  pointed  out  the  amendments  it  makes  n 
existing  laws.     They  may  be  briefly  summed  up  thus :  — 

1.  Merchandise  maybe  deposited,  and  remain  in  store  tw( 
or  three  years,  instead  of  sixty  or  ninety  days,  before  sellin| 
it  for  the  purpose  of  realizing  the  duties. 

2,  Merchandise   may  be  withdrawn  from   store,  at  am 
time   during  the   two  or  three  years,  for  domestic  use  or 
consumption,  on  the  payment  of  charges  and  duties,  without  ^ 
exacting  interest  on  the  latter  from  the  date  of  the  entry. 

8.  Merchandise  may  be  entered  for  exportation  at  any; 
time  during  the  two  or  three  years,  on  the  payment  of  actual 
charges  and  expenses. 

These  are  the  leading  provisions  of  the  bill.      It  has  been 
a  ruling  consideration  in  framing  it  to  divest  it  of  all  com- 
plexity.    It  has  been  thought  proper  to  put  it  in  the  most 
simple  form  possible,  and  to  rely  mainly  for  carrying  into 
effect  the  new  provisions  it  contains  on  regulations  to  be 
framed  by  the  Treasury  Department.     These  may  be  accom- 
modated to  unforeseen  circumstances,  and  exigencies  may 
thus  be  met  which  might  be  without  a  remedy  for  a  time,  ifi 
all  the  details  of  the  plan  were  at  the  outset  to  be  regulate( 
by  legal   enactments.     The   Secretary  of  the  Treasury  isj 
therefore,  authorized  to  make  such  regulations,  not  inconsisti 
ent  with  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  as  may  be  necessary 
to  give  full  effect  to  the  provisions  of  the  act.     As  the  plai 
is  tried,  and  its  defects  or  its  benefits  become  fully  disclosed^ 
the  details  may  be  all  placed  upon  the  permanent  footing  oi 
legal  regulation.  .  It  is  believed  that  the  course  suggeste( 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  121 

will  be  deemed  reconcilable  with  the  most  scrupulous  con- 
siderations of  prudence,  when  it  is  remembered  that  there  is 
little  in  the  plan  which  is  absolutely  new,  or  which  may  not 
be  accomplished  by  a  mere  extension  or  a  broader  application 
of  existing-  provisions  of  law. 

I  shall  now  detain  the  Senate  but  a  moment,  in  stating 
some  of  the  principal  benefits  anticipated  from  the  changes 
proposed  in  the  existing  revenue  system. 

The  first  and  greatest  benefit  to  the  commercial  interest  is 
the  relief  it  will  afford  from  the  present  system  of  exacting 
the  payment  of  duties  in  cash,  on  the  completion  of  the  entry 
of  merchandise.  In  one  sense  it  may  be  contended,  when 
compared  with  the  present  system,  that  it  is  an  extension  of 
a  credit  to  the  importer  for  the  duties  until  he  can  effect  a 
sale  of  his  goods.  Strictly  speaking,  it  is  but  abstaining 
from  an  unreasonable  exaction ;  and  it  is  divested  of  all  risk 
to  the  public,  as  the  goods  will  never  be  permitted  to  go  into 
the  possession  of  the  owner  until  the  duties  are  paid.  It 
will  relieve  him  from  the  great  hardship,  which  is  common 
under  the  present  system,  of  being  forced  to  sell  a  portion 
of  his  goods,  and  sometimes  in  an  overstocked  market,  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  the  money  to  pay  the  duties.  It  will 
enable  him  to  pay  the  duties  as  he  has  the  opportunity  of 
disposing  of  his  goods  for  consumption,  instead  of  being 
compelled  to  borrow  money,  or  sell  his  merchandise  at  a  loss, 
to  raise  it ;  and  it  will  enable  men  of  moderate  means  to 
enter  into  competition  with  large  capitalists,  who,  as  I  have 
already  said,  monopolize  to  a  great  extent  the  business  of 
importation,  through  their  ability  to  command  money  to 
meet  the  payment  of  duties  in  cash.  The  proposed  change 
is  entirely  consistent  with  the  principle  and  the  object  of  cash 
payments ;  and  by  preventing  forced  sales  of  goods  to  raise 
money  for  the  payment  of  duties,  it  will  often  avoid  an  over- 
stock of  the  domestic  market  with  foreign  merchandise,  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  importer,  by  compelling  him  to  sacrifice 
his  property,  and  of  the  producer  of  domestic  goods  of  like 

16 


122  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

character,  by  depressing  prices.  If  we  consider  also  that  it 
will  be  likely  to  enlarge  the  circle  of  competition  in  the  busi- 
ness of  importation,  —  not  to  augment  the  aggregate  amount 
of  imports  for  consumption,  but  to  divide  it  among  a  greater 
number  of  persons,  —  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  perceive  that 
the  mercantile  interest  must  be  greatly  benefited  by  the 
change. 

The  second  benefit,  though  perhaps  not  second  in  impor- 
tance, to  be  anticipated  from  the  proposed  measure,  is  the 
stimulus  it  will  be  likely  to  give  to  the  carrying  trade,  by 
making  our  ports  of  entry  entrepots  for  the  productions  of 
all  countries.  Under  the  present  system,  if  imported  mer- 
chandise is  entered  for  exportation,  the  duties  are  not 
refunded  until  after  the  exportation  has  actually  taken  place. 
Thus,  if  an  importer,  having  brought  merchandise  into  the 
country  for  the  domestic  market,  and  having  paid  the  duties, 
finds  at  the  end  of  one,  two,  or  three  years  no  demand  for 
it  at  home,  and  is  compelled  to  reexport  it,  he  will  have  lost 
during  that  period  the  use  of  the  money  he  has  paid  for  the 
duties,  and  he  is  taxed  in  addition  two  and  a  half  per  cent, 
on  the  whole  amount  so  paid  as  a  premium  to  the  govern- 
ment for  the  privilege  of  sending  his  goods  to  a  foreign 
market.  No  better  scheme  could  be  devised  either  to  glut 
the  domestic  market  by  forcing  the  importer  to  throw  his 
merchandise  into  it  at  any  price  it  will  command,  or,  on  the 
other,  to  discourage  navigation  by  taxing  the  reexportation 
of  foreign  merchandise  which  is  not  wanted  at  home. 
Under  the  proposed  plan,  foreign  merchandise  will  be 
allowed  to  be  freely  deposited  in  store,  and  to  be  reex- 
ported as  freely,  with  no  other  imposition  than  the  pay- 
ment of  actual  expenses  of  storage,  &c.  One  of  the  certain 
consequences  of  such  a  system  must  be  to  accumulate  in 
our  maritime  towns  a  variety  of  the  products  of  other 
countries,  where  our  vessels  can  make  up  assorted  cargoes 
for  foreign  markets.  This  facility  has  led  to  the  deposit 
in  British  ports  of  merchandise  designed  for  reshipment  to 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  128 

the  southern  portions  of  this  continent,  and,  indeed,  to  all 
quarters  of  the  globe.  The  value  of  foreign  merchandise 
deposited  in  the  warehouses  of  Great  Britain  is  estimated 
at  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars.  The  proposed 
plan  would  have  the  same  result  here,  if  like  effects  are  to 
be  expected  from  like  causes.  The  deposit  of  even  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  such  a  quantity  in  value,  made  up,  as 
much  of  it  doubtless  would  be,  of  goods  suitable  to  the 
South  American  and  Pacific  markets,  could  not  fail  to 
benefit  and  extend  our  navigating  interest,  —  one  of  the 
most  valuable  in  peace,  and  the  most  important  of  all  others 
to  so  commercial  a  community  as  the  United  States  as  a 
means  of  defence  in  war.  That  our  carrying  trade  would 
be  vastly  increased ;  that  shipbuilding  would  be  stimulated ; 
that  many  foreign  markets  would  be  supplied,  wholly  or  in 
part,  by  us  with  merchandise  now  furnished  from  the  ware- 
houses of  Europe ;  that  the  industry  of  our  seaports  would 
be  put  in  greater  activity ;  that  the  commercial  transactions 
of  the  country  would  be  facilitated;  and  that  a  healthier 
competition  would  be  created  in  the  business  of  importation, 
can  hardly  be  doubted.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  opinion  of  the 
mercantile  community ;  and  so  believing,  it  is  natural  that 
they  should  look  with  great  interest  to  the  concurrence  of 
the  Senate  in  a  measure  which  appears  to  them  so  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  prosperity  of  the  country. 

And  finally,  Mr,  President,  if  uniform  prices  and  steady 
markets  are,  as  we  are  taught  to  believe,  advantageous  to 
the  producing  classes,  the  manufacturing  interest,  next  to 
the  commercial,  is  likely  to  be  most  benefited  by  the  pro- 
posed measure,  through  supplies  of  merchandise  near  at  hand, 
ready  to  meet  sudden  and  unusual  demands,  thus  preventing 
a  transient  scarcity  from  becoming  the  basis  of  speculation, 
and  furnishing  an  additional  safeguard  against  those  derange- 
ments which  are  always  the  most  injurious  to  steady  industry. 

Mr.  Dix  then  proceeded  to  suggest  and  explain  certain  amendments 
to  the  bill,  which  he  intended  to  propose  at  a  future  stage  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 


124i  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 


n. 


After  the  preceding  explanatory  speech,  Mr.  Huntington,  of  Con^ 
necticut,  spoke  at  length  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  although  his  speech 
was  never  published  except  in  the  form  of  an  outline.  The  following 
speech  in  reply  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Dix  on  the  9th  July,  1846. 

Mr.  President  :  It  was  my  intention  to  reply  to  the 
Senator  from  Connecticut^  on  the  day  after  he  addressed  the 
Senate ;  but  I  have  been  prevented  by  a  variety  of  circum- 
stances over  which  I  could  exercise  no  control.  With  the 
lapse  of  time  which  has  intervened,  (now  more  than  a  week,) 
his  remarks  have  lost  something  of  their  freshness ;  and  I 
may  not  be  able  to  follow  his  argument  as  closely  as  I  might 
have  done  if  I  could  have  had  an  opportunity  to  respond  at 
an  earlier  day, — especially  as  I  have  been,  for  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  intervening  time,  absent  from  the  city, 
and  in  no  condition  to  examine  his  arguments.  It  would 
now  be  in  vain,  if  I  were  to  undertake  to  follow  him  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  able  and  well-considered 
speech.  I  shall  not  attempt  it.  But  I  desire  so  far  to  tax  the 
indulgence  of  the  Senate  as  to  notice  the  objections  he  has 
made  to  the  details  of  the  bill  under  consideration,  to  ex- 
amine a  few  of  his  leading  arguments  against  the  general 
policy  of  the  measure,  and  to  point  out  what  I  consider 
grave  misapprehensions  with  regard  to  certain  commercial 
facts  which  have  an  essential   connection  with  the  subject. 

His  objections  to  the  details  of  the  bill  came  first  in  the 
course  of  his  argument,  and  I  shall  take  them  up  in  the 
order  in  which  they  were  presented  to  the  Senate. 

But  I  desire  to  notice,  in  the  first  place,  a  preliminary 
remark  of  the  Senator.     He  did  me  the  honor  to  say  that 

1  Mr.  Huntington. 


1 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  1£5 

he  considered  me  capable  of  drawing  this  bill, —  a  compli- 
ment for  which  I  beg  him  to  accept  my  thanks,  though  I 
did  think  he  took  from  it  much  of  its  value  when  he  added 
that,  in  his  opinion,  such  a  bill  ought  not  to  receive  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Senate.  He  said,  also,  that  he  considered  me 
capable  of  drawing  a  bill  on  any  subject:  in  this  he  conceded 
to  me  entirely  too  much  merit.  And  he  concluded  by  saying 
that,  if  he  had  not  felt  this  assurance,  he  would  have  sup- 
posed the  bill,  from  his  view  of  its  probable  operation,  to  have 
been  drawn  by  some  large  capitalist,  or  the  factor  of  some 
foreign  manufacturer.  Now,  I  beg  to  assure  my  honorable 
friend  from  Connecticut  that  no  person  of  the  description 
referred  to  by  him  had  any  agency  in  the  matter.  The 
person  to  whom  I  was  principally  indebted  for  suggestions 
in  respect  to  it,  before  it  was  prepared  for  presentation  to 
the  Senate,  was  one  of  those  "regular  dealers"  in  New 
York,  who,  according  to  the  Senator,  have  no  interest  in  a 
warehouse  system, — who  neither  desire  nor  can  afford  to 
use  it, —  a  gentleman  of  intelligence  and  information,  and 
who  is  now  a  member  of  the  convention  engaged  in  revising 
the  constitution  of  the  State.  But  I  can  assure  the  Senator 
that  the  gentleman  to  whom  I  allude  deems  the  measure  of 
the  utmost  importance  to  those  who,  under  the  present  sys- 
tem, have  not  the  means  of  entering  into  competition  with 
large  capitalists,  and  believes  that  it  will  have  a  salutary 
influence  upon  the  commercial  prosperity  of  the  country. 

I  proceed  now  to  notice  the  objections  the  Senator  has 
taken  to  the  details  of  the  bill :  — 

1.  The  first  objection,  as  I  understood  it,  was,  that  in 
depositing  merchandise  in  store  no  invoice  was  required,  no 
appraisement  was  necessary,  nothing,  indeed,  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  merchandise,  or  the  amount  of  the  duties 
chargeable  on  it.  If  the  Senator  will  refer  to  the  amend- 
ments I  have  proposed,  he  will  see  that  all  these  objects  are 
effectually  accomplished.  The  importer  of  foreign  merchan- 
dise is  required  "  to  make  entry  "  for  warehousing  it,  "  in 


1£5  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

such  form,  and  supported  by  such  proof,  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury."  To  make  entry 
of  merchandise  has  a  specific  and  well-known  meaning  in  ^ 
the  operations  of  the  custom-house.  It  involves  the  neces- vi 
sity  of  an  invoice,  and  a  compliance  with  a  variety  of  well- 
digested  forms.  Nor  is  this  all.  Another  amendment 
provides  that  the  duties  and  the  charges  on  merchandise 
deposited  in  store  shall  be  ascertained  "  on  due  entry  there- 
of." The  duties  cannot  be  ascertained  without  weighing, 
gauging,  measuring,  or  appraising  the  merchandise.  Thus 
it  will  be  seen  that  a  compliance  with  all  the  forms  of  pro- 
ceeding which  are  required  in  the  payment  of  the  duties  on' 
the  entry  of  merchandise  is  to  be  rigidly  exacted  when  it  is  ; 
deposited  in  store. 

2.  The  next  objection  is,  that  if  goods  are  burnt  while  in 
store,  the  government  will  lose  the  duties.  Now,  sir,  I  ask 
if  the  government  should  exact  duties  in  such  a  case  ?  Is 
it  not  enough  that  the  importer  or  owner  should  lose  his 
merchandise  ?  Have  not  the  duties  usually  been  remitted  in 
such  cases  ?  I  suppose  this  to  have  been  the  practice ;  and 
certainly  it  is  opposed  to  every  principle  of  liberality,  and 
even  of  fairness,  to  exact  duties  on  merchandise  which  has 
never  come  into  the  home  market  for  domestic  consump- 
tion. 

8,  The  Senator  savs,  if  merchandise  deteriorates  while  in 
store,  the  government  will  lose  the  whole  amount,  or  at  least 
a  portion  of  the  duties,  and  that  they  will  be  calculated  on 
the  reduced  value.  In  this  he  is  entirely  mistaken.  The 
duties,  as  I  have  already  said,  are  to  be  ascertained  on  the 
entry  for  warehousing  the  merchandise.  They  will  be  calcu- 
lated on  its  full  value;  and  if  it  becomes  perishable,  the  offi- 
cers of  the  customs  will  cause  it  to  be  sold  forthwith  under 
the  provision  relating  to  perishable  goods,  and  thus  realize 
the  duties  before  the  merchandise  becomes  worthless. 

4.  The  Senator  is  of  the  opinion,  that,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  bill,  merchandise  may  be  taken  out  of  store 


THE  WAEEHOUSE   SYSTEM. 


1£7 


and  reexported  in  any  quantity,  however  small.  The  bill 
is  not  so  intended,  nor  do  I  think  it  can  properly  receive 
such  a  construction.  If  he  will  look  at  the  twenty-ninth 
line,  he  will  see  that  a  comjdiance  with  the  requirements  of 
existing"  laws,  in  relation  to  the  exportation  of  merchandise 
with  the  benefit  of  drawback,  is  necessary.  It  must,  there- 
fore, be  exported  in  the  original  packages.  But  if  there  is 
any  doubt  on  this  subject,  a  verbal  amendment  will  be  all 
that  is  required  to  remove  the  objection. 

5.  With  regard  to  the  necessity  of  a  bond  to  pay  the 
duties,  there  is  good  ground  for  a  difference  of  opinion.  It 
is  to  be  remembered  that  the  goods  are  to  be  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  collector,  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  possession 
of  the  government.  They  are  a  perfect  security  for  the 
payment  of  the  duties.  Why,  then,  exact  a  bond '?  If  it  be 
thought  expedient,  there  certainly  can  be  no  valid  objection. 
Under  the  British  system  no  bond  is  required,  if  the  goods 
are  deposited  in  the  public  stores,  and  are  in  the  possession 
of  the  Crown.  When  the  goods  are  deposited  in  warehouses 
belonging  to  individuals  or  companies,  a  bond  is  required, 
not  usually  from  the  owner  of  the  goods,  but  a  general  bond 
from  the  owner  of  the  warehouse,  stipulating  that  the  goods 
deposited  with  him  shall  be  exported,  or  the  duties  paid  in 
full. 

6.  With  regard  to  the  danger  of  a  clandestine  removal 
of  goods,  —  another  objection  urged  against  the  bill,  —  the 
answer  is,  that  the  danger  must  be  very  slight,  as  the  goods 
will  be,  as  those  now  deposited  in  store  are,  in  possession  of 
the  custom-house  officers.  There  is,  I  believe,  no  provision 
by  law  now  for  the  punishment  of  such  offences.  But  if 
experience  shall  show  the  necessity  of  such  a  provision,  it 
can  at  any  time  be  made.  Indeed,  I  will  not  object  to  such 
an  amendment  of  the  bill,  if  it  be  thought  advisable. 

7.  With  regard  to  the  provision  exonerating  the  master 
of  a  vessel  from  all  claim  of  the  owner  of  merchandise, 
which  has  been  sold  by  the  collector  for  the  non-payment 


128  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

of  the  duties,  I  will  only  say  that  it  is  copied  verbatim  from 
the  tariff  act  of  184<S,  that  it  is  in  constant  practice,  and  no 
difficulty  is  known  to  have  resulted  from  it. 

8.  It  is  also  objected  that  if  goods  are  once  withdrawn 
from  the  public  stores,  and  the  duties  paid,  they  can  never 
afterwards  be  reexported,  or,  in  other  words,  that  foreign 
goods  can  only  be  reexported  from  the  stores.  Sir,  this  is 
an  entire  misapprehension.  All  the  laws  relating  to  deben- 
tures will  be  left  in  full  force.  If  an  importer  or  owner  of 
merchandise  deposited  in  store  withdraws  it,  and  pays  the 
duties,  he  may  at  any  time,  within  the  period  allowed  by 
law,  reexport  it  with  the  benefit  of  drawback.  The  existing 
provisions  of  law  will,  in  this  respect,  remain  untouched. 
But  in  case  of  reexportation  under  such  circumstances,  a 
deduction  of  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  will  be  made  on 
refunding  the  duties. 

9.  It  is  said,  also,  that  goods  may  be  withdrawn  in  the 
smallest  quantity  for  home  consumption,  and  that  the  public 
stores  will  become  mere  retail  shops.  It  is  certainly  very 
unlikely  that  any  such  result  will  follow.  No  merchandise 
can  be  withdrawn  without  a  permit  from  the  collector,  and 
this  permit  must  be  paid  for.  The  inconvenience  and  ex- 
pense will,  in  ordinary  cases,  constitute  sufficient  obstacles  to 
the  withdrawal  of  minute  quantities  of  merchandise.  But 
if  gentlemen  think  it  material,  the  objection  can  readily  be 
removed  by  a  proviso  that  no  merchandise  shall  be  with- 
drawn from  store  in  less  quantities  than  in  an  entire  pack- 
age, bale,  box,  or  cask. 

These,  as  I  understand  them,  are  the  objections  made  to 
the  details  of  the  bill ;  and  I  am  sure  it  will  afford  the 
Senator  pleasure  to  find,  on  a  more  critical  examination  of 
the  subject,  that  there  is  not  one  of  them  which  is  not  either 
groundless,  or  which  may  not  be  removed  by  the  most 
simple  amendment. 

I  will  only  say,  in  conclusion,  in  respect  to  the  details  of 
the  bill,  that  it  has  been  subjected  to  the  rigid  scrutiny  of 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  1^9 

some  of  the  most  intelligent  individuals  in  the  revenue 
service,  —  some  now  in  commission,  and  others  who  have 
become  familiar  with  the  operations  of  the  system,  through 
long  experience  in  prominent  situations.  All  these  gentle- 
men concur  in  the  opinion  that  it  will  be  adequate  to  the 
objects  it  has  in  view,  and  that  it  is  sufficiently  guarded 
against  abuse.  But  should  experience  point  out  necessary 
changes,  it  will  always  be  easy  to  make  them. 

I  come  now,  Mr.  President,  to  a  portion  of  the  Senator's 
remarks  which  will  require  a  somewhat  extended  and  criti- 
cal examination.  When  this  bill  was  first  called  up  for 
consideration,  I  alluded  incidentally,  in  my  explanation  of 
its  provisions,  to  the  British  warehouse  system,  and  to  the 
influence  it  had  exerted  upon  the.  commercial  prosperity  of 
Great  Britain.  I  did  not  say,  nor  did  I  intend  to  intimate, 
that  the  plan  proposed  by  the  bill  under  consideration  was 
copied,  in  any  degree,  from  the  British  system.  On  the 
contrary,  I  had,  throughout  my  remarks,  kept  steadily  in 
view  the  idea  that  it  was  founded  upon  our  own  laws  regur 
lating  the  deposit  of  merchandise  in  the  public  stores,  and; 
that  the  objects  it  had  in  view  were  to  be  accomphshed  by 
an  enlargement  and  more  extended  application  of  the  pro- 
visions of  those  laws.  In  his  reply,  the  Senator  referred 
to  the  British  system,  comparing  the  plan  proposed  by  the 
bill  under  consideration  with  it,  and  in  his  references  to  the 
operation  of  the  former  he  came  to  conclusions  to  which  I 
cannot  yield  my  assent. 

I  have  no  printed  report  of  the  Senator's  remarks,  and, 
speaking  from  very  hasty  and  brief  notes  of  his  topics,  I 
may  inadvertently  misstate  him.  I  trust  I  shall  not ;  but 
if  I  do,  I  beg  him  to  be  assured  that  no  one  will  regret  it 
so  much  as  myself. 

I  understood  one  of  his  first  remarks,  in  relation  to  the 
British  warehouse  system,  to  be,  that  it  was  designed  to 
extend  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain,,  and  to  depress  the 
trade  and  shipping  of  other  countries.      I  cannot  concur 

17 


130  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

with  him  in  all  respects,  though  not  differing  with  him  en- 
tirely as  to  its  design ;  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  its 
effect  has  not  been  to  exclude  foreign  shipping  from  a  par- 
ticipation in  the  commerce  of  the  British  empire. 

Its  design,  as  I  have  always  understood,  was  chiefly  to 
remove  great  commercial  inconveniences,  arising  from  the 
necessity  of  paying  duties  in  cash  on  the  entry  of  merchan- 
dise. These  inconveniences  are  stated  by  McCulloch  to 
have  been :  — 

"  1.  That  the  merchant,  in  order  to  raise  funds  to  pay  the  duties,  was 
frequently  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  selling  his  goods  immediately  on 
their  arrival,  when,  perhaps,  the  market  was  glutted. 

"  2.  That  the  duties  having  to  be  paid  all  at  once,  and  not  by  degrees, 
as  the  goods  were  sold  for  consumption,  their  price  was  raised  by  the 
amount  of  the  profit  on  the  capital  advanced  in  payment  of  the  duties. 

"  3.  That  competition  was  diminished  in  consequence  of  the  greater 
command  of  funds  required  to  carry  on  trade  under  such  disadvan- 
tages ;  and  a  few  rich  individuals  were  enabled  to  monopolize  the  im- 
portation of  those  commodities  on  which  duties  were  payable. 

"  4.  That  the  system  of  paying  cash  on  the  entry  of  merchandise  had 
an  obvious  tendency  to  discourage  the  carrying  trade. 

"  5.  That  it  prevented  the  country  from  becoming  an  entrepot  for  for- 
eign products ;  and  hindered  the  importation  of  such  as  were  not  imme- 
diately wanted  for  home  consumption,  and  thus  tended  to  lessen  the 
resort  of  foreigners*  to  the  markets  of  Great  Britain,  inasmuch  as  it 
became  difficult,  or  rather  impossible,  for  them  to  complete  an  assorted 
cargo." 

These  are  the  reasons  assigned  by  McCulloch  for  estab- 
Hshing  the  system ;  and  it  is  curious  to  observe  how  closely 
this  enumeration  of  inconveniences  describes  those  under 
which  our  own  commerce  labors. 

In  the  "Yearly  Journal  of  Trade"  for  1845,  —  a  work 
which  has  been  published  for  twenty-three  years,  and  which, 
I  believe,  may  be  safely  referred  to  as  authority  in  matters 
touching  the  commercial  system  of  Great  Britain,  —  I  find 
the  following  passages  in  some  preliminary  remarks  in  rela- 
tion to  warehousing :  — 

"  Antecedently  to  the  present  century,  a  system  of  restraint  and 
prohibition  pervaded  the  administration  of  our  maritime  and  revenue 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  131 

affairs,  producing  inconvenience  to  the  merchant  and  detriment  to  com- 
merce. Much  of  such  inconvenience  arose  from  the  circumstance  of 
the  import  duties  being  required  to  be  paid  on  the  landing  of  goods, 
amounting  frequently  to  many  thousand  pounds.  Such  was  more  par- 
ticularly the  case  during  the  late  war,  when  the  usual  regularity  of 
commercial  transactions  was  much  interrupted,  and  the  merchant,  at 
times,  called  upon  on  the  unexpected  arrival  of  a  ship  for  a  large  ad- 
vance of  duties.  This  gave  rise  to  a  system  of  deferring  payment,  by 
allowing  goods  to  be  secured  in  warehouses  or  other  approved  places 
under  the  locks  of  the  crown,  and  to  be  taken  out  as  might  suit  the 
convenience  of  parties,  the  payment  not  being  called  for  until  the  goods 
were  taken  out.  Hence,  in  1803,  the  establishment  of  the  general 
warehousing  system." 

"  The  principle  upon  which  the  warehousing  act  was  founded  was, 
that  goods,  upon  being  taken  out,  either  for  home  consumption,  for 
exportation,  or  removal  coastwise,  should  be  subject  to  the  like  condi- 
tions as  when  first  imported.  This  was  then  deemed  a  prodigious 
boon ;  such  it  unquestionably  was." 

Such  was  the  design  of  the  system.  It  had  no  direct 
connection  with  any  consideration  of  policy  in  respect  to  the 
trade  or  shipping  of  foreigners.  It  was  a  matter  purely  of 
domestic  interest,  framed  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  the 
commerce  of  Great  Britain,  —  not  to  depress  the  commerce 
of  other  countries.  Indeed,  by  referring  to  her  statutes,  it 
will  be  seen  that  foreign  vessels  are  permitted  to  carry  into 
her  ports,  and  to  warehouse  for  exportation,  articles  prohib- 
ited to  be  introduced  into  the  kingdom  for  home  use. 

Its  effect  has  not  been  to  discourage  the  participation  of 
foreign  shipping  in  the  commercial  intercourse  of  Great 
Britain  with  other  nations.  On  the  contrary,  foreign  ton- 
nage enters  to  a  very  remarkable  extent  into  her  foreign 
trade. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  I  will  proceed  to  state 
some  of  the  principal  modifications  and  relaxations  of  her 
ancient  anti-commercial  system,  which  have  taken  place 
within  the  last  half-century.  For  this  purpose  I  will  again 
refer  to  the  last-named  work,  in  which  the  changes  are  bet- 
ter and  much  more  briefly  stated  than  they  would  be  if  given 
in  my  own  words :  — 


182  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE.  „ 

i 

"  The  opening  of  the  East  India  trade  to  private  individuals  stands 
foremost  in  the  list  of  modern  alterations  in  our  commercial  code. 
That  this  trade  was  almost  exclusively  confined  to  the  East  India  Com- 
pany since  the  year  1595,  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  is  well 
known. 

"  The  first  general  warehousing  act  was  passed  in  1803.  The  lead- 
ing feature  of  the  warehousing  act  is  to  defer  the  payment  of  duties 
formerly  due  to  the  king  at  the  time  of  importation,  and  to  allow  goods 
to  remain,  under  certain  regulations,  in  warehouses,  or  other  places, 
until  it  may  suit  the  parties  to  remove  them  either  for  exportation  or 
home  consumption." 

"In  the  year  1824,  an  entirely  new  principle  was  introduced  into 
the  economy  of  our  foreign  trade,  and  which  affects  in  no  slight  degree 
the  interests  of  some  of  our  staple  manufactures. 

"  This  principle  is  to  abolish,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  prohibitions 
on  import  and  bounties  on  export. 

"A  system  of  reciprocity  in  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations 
has  been  recently  adopted.  The  ships  of  those  kingdoms  that  choose 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  advantages,  may  now  enter  British  or  Irish 
ports  upon  the  same  terms  as  ships  of  the  United  Kingdom ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  our  vessels  may  enter  into  the  harbors  belonging  to 
those  foreign  nations  upon  the  same  terms  as  if  built  and  navigated  by 
their  own  countrymen." 

Among  the  most  important  of  these  changes  are  the 
privileges  granted  by  the  reciprocity  treaties,  to  which  the 
writer  refers.  I  confess  I  was  somewhat  surprised,  when 
I  came  to  look  into  the  subject,  to  see  their  number  and  the 
liberal  nature  of  their  stipulations.  I  find  that  Great  Britain 
has  arrangements  with  twenty-three  independent  States  re- 
lating to  the  trade  with  the  United  Kingdom,  and  nineteen 
relating  to  the  trade  with  her  possessions  abroad.  Some  of 
these  arrangements  rest  upon  treaties  of  a  very  liberal  char- 
acter, and  others  upon  orders  of  council  issued  by  virtue  of 
a  statute  authorizing  the  sovereign  to  concede  certain  priv- 
ileges in  consideration  of  like  concessions  from  the  States 
to  which  they  are  granted.  I  will  read  to  the  Senate  a  few 
stipulations  from  two  of  the  treaties,  in  order  that  the  sub- 
ject may  be  better  understood. 

From  a  convention  of  commerce  and  navigation  with 
Sweden  and  Norway  :  — 


THE   WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  I33 

"  Duties,  Sj-c.  —  British  vessels  entering  or  departing  from  the  ports 
of  the  kingdoms  of  Sweden  and  Norway,  and  Swedish  and  Norwegian 
vessels  entering  or  departing  from  the  ports  of  the  United  Kingdom 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  shall  not  be  subject  to  any  other  or 
higher  ship-duties  or  charges  than  are  or  shall  be  levied  on  national 
vessels  entering  or  departing  from  such  ports  respectively. 

"  Vessels  and  Goods.  —  All  goods,  whether  the  production  of  the  king- 
doms of  Sweden  and  Norway,  or  of  any  other  country,  wliich  may  be 
legally  imported  from  any  of  the  ports  of  the  said  kingdoms  into 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  in  British  vessels, 
shall,  in  like  manner,  be  permitted  to  be  so  imported  directly  in  Swed- 
ish or  Norwegian  vessels  ;  and  all  goods,  whether  the  production  of 
any  of  the  dominions  of  his  Britannic  Majesty,  or  of  any  other  coun- 
try, which  may  be  legally  exported  from  the  ports  of  the  United  King- 
dom in  British  vessels,  shall,  in  like  manner,  be  permitted  to  be  ex- 
ported from  the  said  ports  in  Swedish  or  Norwegian  vessels.  An  exact 
reciprocity  shall  be  observed,"  &c. 

From  a  treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation  with  the  Neth- 
erlands :  — 

"  Duties  of  Customs,  Privileges,  Sfc.  —  No  duty  of  customs  or  other  im- 
post shall  be  charged  upon  any  goods,  the  produce  of  one  country, 
upon  importations  by  sea  or  by  land  from  such  country  into  the  other, 
higher  than  the  duty  or  impost  charged  upon  goods  of  the  same  kind, 
the  produce  of,  or  imported  from,  any  other  country ;  and  her  Majesty 
the  Queen  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and 
his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  do  hereby  bind  and  engage 
themselves  not  to  grant  any  favor,  privilege,  or  immunity,  in  matters 
of  commerce  and  navigation,  to  the  subject  of  any  State  which  shall 
not  be  also,  and  at  the  same  time,  extended  to  the  other  subjects  of 
the  other  high  contracting,  party,  gratuitously,  if  the  concession  in  favor 
of  that  other  State  shall  have  been  gratuitous ;  and,  on  giving,  as 
nearly  as  possible,  the  same  compensation  or  ec^uivalent  in  case  the 
concession  shall  have  been  conditional." 

By  referring  to  the  "  Yearly  Journal  of  Trade,"  for 
1845,  page  45,  it  will  be  seen  that  Great  Britain  has  reci- 
procity treaties  with  fifteen  independent  States,  granting  to 
each  other,  mutually,  the  "  benefits  of  the  most  favored  na- 
tion." The  stipulations  above  quoted  are,  therefore,  appli- 
cable to  all  the  fifteen  States. 

What  has  been  the  result  of  these  international  commer- 


134  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

cial  arrangements  ?  It  is  one  of  which  I  must  confess  I 
was  not  apprised,  though  other  Senators  may  be  more  fa- 
miliar with  the  subject,  and  the  statement  may  give  them  no 
surprise.  In  the  year  1841,  (I  cannot  find  the  returns  of 
a  later  year,)  the  foreign  shipping  engaged  in  the  commerce 
of  Great  Britain  bore  a  greater  proportion  to  her  own  ton- 
nage than  the  foreign  shipping  engaged  in  the  commerce 
of  the  United  States  in  the  year  1845  bore  to  our  own  ton- 
nage. These  details  I  shall  give  more  at  length  at  a  subse- 
quent stage  of  my  remarks. 

Great  Britain  has  thus  adopted  the  maxim,  which  it  is  to 
be  hoped  may  become  universal,  —  that  national  prosperity 
is  to  be  sought  for,  not  in  unnecessary  restrictions,  not  in 
commercial  conventions  framed  with  a  view  to  obtain  exclu- 
sive advantages  by  subtlety  and  address,  but  through  the 
better  and  more  enlightened  policy  of  securing  mutual  priv- 
ileges by  a  liberal  application  of  the  principle  of  reciprocity. 

In  the  commercial  intercourse  of  foreign  nations  with  her 
colonial  possessions,  she  still  maintains,  to  some  extent,  a 
system  of  restriction.  A  vessel  from  any  country  may 
carry  to  her  colonies  a  cargo,  the  produce  of  that  country, 
and  carry  away  from  those  colonies  a  cargo  to  any  country 
not  a  British  possession,  but  not  frond  one  British  possession 
to  another. 

But  it  is  time  to  return  to  the  details  of  the  British  ware- 
house system.  The  Senator  stated  that  it  was  a  restricted 
system.  I  disagree  with  him.  I  shall  prove  it  to  be  an 
exceedingly  liberal  system,  not  only  in  respect  to  the  number 
of  warehousing  ports,  bat  in  respect  to  the  articles  allowed 
to  be  warehoused.  It  was  established  in  1808,  on  a  very 
limited  scale  as  to  the  favored  articles,  and  for  the  port  of 
London  alone.  It  now  embraces  sixty-eight  ports  in  Eng- 
land, twenty-three  in  Scotland,  and  eighteen  in  Ireland,  —  in 
all,  109.  In  most  of  the  large  ports,  goods  in  general  may 
be  warehoused ;  in  the  smaller  ports,  particular  goods  only. 
London  in  the  southeast,  Bristol  in  the  southwest,  and  Liv- 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  135 

erpool  in  the  northwest,  are  privileged  for  all  goods  which 
may  be  legally  imported;  and  Hull,  in  the  northeast,  for  the 
same,  with  a  single  class  of  exceptions.  These  ports  are 
admirably  situated  for  distributing  the  products  deposited 
with  them  to  all  portions  of  the  kingdom.  Stand  at  Leices- 
ter, which  lies  in  the  very  centre  of  England,  and  draw  a 
circle  around  you  which  shall  pass  through  one  of  these 
ports,  and  it  will  touch  or  graze  all  the  others.  There  is  not 
a  single  point  in  England  distant  in  an  air  line  more  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  from  some  of  these  ports,  excepting 
the  Laud's  End  in  Cornwall,  which  may  be  two  hundred 
from  Bristol.  The  Senator  from  Connecticut,  if  I  did  not 
misunderstand  him,  represented  these  four  ports  as  the  only 
ones  to  which  a  liberal  scale  of  privilege  in  respect  to  ware- 
housing had  been  applied.  Sir,  my  honorable  friend  is  be- 
hind the  age.  He  is  about  up  to  the  era  of  George  IV.,  or 
possibly  the  fourth  William.  I  say  it  in  no  offensive  sense. 
He  will  properly  appreciate  this  disclaimer  when  I  frankly 
acknowledge  that  a  few  days  ago  I  was  in  the  same  predica- 
ment with  him.  I  have  fortunately  fallen  upon  more  recent 
information,  and  I  am  happy  not  only  to  have  advanced  my- 
self, but  to  be  able  to  bring  him  up  with  me  to  the  point  at 
which  things  now  stand.  Falmouth,  in  Cornwall,  has  been 
made  a  warehousing  port  for  all  goods,  with  the  single 
exception  of  silks.  Southampton,  about  midway  from  the 
Land's  End  to  the  Straits  of  Dover,  is  largely  privileged. 
Manchester  has  recently  been  made,  by  act  of  Parliament, 
a  warehousing  town  for  consumption  only.  It  is  an  inland 
place,  as  we  all  know,  and  therefore  not  fit  for  warehousing 
for  exportation.  I  find  in  the  list  of  warehousing  ports 
twelve  privileged  for  "  all  goods,"  with  certain  specified  ex- 
ceptions. In  short,  the  system,  as  to  ports,  has  been  and  is 
in  a  constant  course  of  extension. 

Let  us  now  see,  sir,  what  goods  may  be  warehoused.  On 
this  point  I  regret  to  be  at  variance  with  the  Senator  from 
Connecticut.      In  looking  into  the  British  statutes,  I  find 


136  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

the  number  of  absolute  prohibitions  extremely  small.  They 
are  as  follows,  and  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  8  and  4f 
William  IV.  c.  5S :  — 

1.  Goods  prohibited  on  account  of  the  package  in  which 
they  are  contained,  or  the  tonnage  of  the  vessels  in  which 
they  are  laden ;  as  cigars  in  packages  of  less  than  one 
hundred  pounds,  or  in  vessels  of  less  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty  tons  burden. 

2.  Gunpowder,  arms,  ammunition,  or  utensils  of  war. 

8.  Infected  hides,  skins,  horns,  hoofs,  or  any  part  of  any 
cattle  or  beast. 

4.  Foreign  playing-cards,  without  the  name  of  the  maker, 
&c. 

5.  Counterfeit  coins  or  tokens. 

6.  Books  first  composed,  or  written,  or  printed,  and  pub- 
lished in  the  United  Kingdom,  and  reprinted  in  any  other 
country. 

7.  Copies  of  prints  engraved,  etched,  drawn,  or  designed 
in  the  United  Kingdom. 

8.  Copies  of  casts  of  sculptures,  or  models,  first  made 
in  the  United  Kingdom. 

9.  Clocks  or  watches  prohibited  to  be  imported  for  home 
use. 

All  other  articles  prohibited  for  home  use  may  be  im- 
ported and  warehoused  for  exportation,  and  in  foreign  ves- 
sels, except  from  British  possessions. 

The  list  of  prohibitions  has  been  diminished  since  the 
statute  above  referred  to  was  enacted.  A  few  years  ago 
all  goods  from  China  were  prohibited  to  be  warehoused, 
unless  imported  in  British  ships.  The  China  trade,  since 
lS84f,  has  been  thrown  open  to  individuals,  excepting  in 
the  single  article  of  tea.  Now,  it  would  appear  that  teas 
may  be  warehoused  for  exportation,  though  imported  m 
foreign  vessels  and  brought  from  anyplace.-^ 

^  See  Customs,  Revenue  Laws,  and  Regulations,  by  Lowe,  Sherlock,  &  Eichards, 
p.  118. 


THE    WAREHOUSE    SYSTEM. 


187 


We  diflfer  also  as  to  the  extent  of  the  authority  conferred 
on  the  commissioners  of  the  treasury.  The  Senator  said 
they  had  power  to  designate  any  article  which  they  con- 
siderered  as  interfering  with  their  domestic  manufactures, 
and  exclude  it  from  the  benefit  of  the  warehouse  system ; 
and  that  the  power  was  frequently  exercised.  He  stated 
this  on  the  authority  of  individuals  whom  he  did  not  name. 
Now,  I  desire  to  ask  him  whether  it  is  not  due  to  this 
body,  in  the  discussion  of  great  questions  of  public  policy, 
to  state  facts  on  grounds  more  definite,  and  better  entitled 
to  consideration,  than  the  authority  of  individuals  not  even 
named ;  especially  when  these  facts  are  matters  of  legal 
regulation,  and  may  be  ascertained  by  a  reference  to  the 
statutes  in  which  they  are  contained  1  Sir,  I  believe  his 
informant  to  be  entirely  mistaken.  The  powers  of  the 
commissioners,  in  respect  to  the  matter  in  issue,  are  con- 
tained in  the  following  section  of  the  act  of  S  and  4* 
Will.  IV.  c.  57:  — 

"  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  commissioners  of  his  Majesty's  treasury, 
by  their  warrant,  from  time  to  time  to  appoint  the  ports  in  the  United 
Kingdom  which  shall  be  warehousing  ports  for  the  purposes  of  this 
act ;  and  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  commissioners  of  customs,  subject 
to  the  authority  and  direction  of  the  commissioners  of  his  Majesty's 
treasury,  by  their  order,  from  time  to  time,  to  appoint  in  what  ware- 
houses or  places  of  special  security,  or  of  ordinary  security,  as  the  case 
may  require,  in  such  ports,  and  in  what  different  parts  or  divisions  of 
such  warehouses  or  places,  and  in  what  manner  any  goods,  and  what 
sorts  of  goods,  may  and  may  only  be  warehoused  and  kept  and  secured, 
without  payment  of-  any  duty  upon  the  first  entry  thereof,  or  for  expor- 
tation only,  in  cases  wherein  the  same  may  be  prohibited  to  be  imported 
for  home  use  ;  and  also  in  such  order  to  direct  in  what  cases  (if  any) 
security  by  bond,  in  manner  hereinafter  provided,  shall  be  required  in 
respect  of  any  warehouse  so  appointed  by  them." 

Many  of  the  articles  to  be  warehoused  are  fixed  by 
law,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  schedules  annexed 
to  the  statutes  regulating  the  warehouse  system.  Over 
these  I  infer,  though  I  may  be  in  error,  that  the  commis- 
sioners exercise  no  control.  I  find  some  of  the  ports 
18 


138  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

selected  by  statute,  —  Manchester,  for  instance.  Can  the 
comnnissioners,  by  their  order,  close  any  port  so  selected 
against  warehousing,  or  exclude  from  the  warehouses  in 
such  port  any  article  the  law  allows  to  be  deposited  in  them  1 
I  cannot  believe  it.  This  would  be  to  exercise  a  power 
beyond  the  law  and  subversive  of  it.  But  if  it  exists,  I 
cannot-  find  that  it  has  been  exercised.  The  true  authority 
of  the  commissioners  of  the  treasury,  I  apprehend,  is  to 
regulate,  arrange,  and  control,  within  the  legal  limitations. 
They  may  enlarge  the  system  by  designating  new  ports ; 
the  commissioners  of  the  customs,  under  their  authority 
and  direction,  may  carry  out  the  details  of  these  extended 
arrangements ;  and  all  such  orders  may  be  revoked.  But 
it  is  only  necessary  to  look  into  the  history  of  the  system, 
and  compare  different  periods,  to  see  that  it  has  been  in 
a  course  of  regular  extension,  both  as  to  ports  and  mer- 
chandise.    On  this  point  I  will  not  further  enlarge. 

It  has  been  stated,  on  the  other  side,  that  foreign  man- 
ufactures intended  for  home  consumption  in  Great  Britain 
cannot  be  warehoused.  I  believe  this  to  be  a  total  misap- 
prehension. It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  foreign  man- 
ufactures may  be  warehoused  for  exportation,  and  yet  I 
can  find  no  special  authority  to  deposit  them  for  that  pur- 
pose. If  they  may  be  in  the  warehouses  for  exportation, 
they  may  be  for  consumption,  unless  there  is  a  restriction. 

I  prove  foreign  manufactures  to  be  in  British  warehouses, 
1st,  by  the  following  regulation :  — • 

"  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  commissioners  of  customs  to  permit  any 
stuffs  or  fabrics  of  sUks,  linen,  cotton,  or  wool,  or  of  any  mixture  of 
them  with  any  other  material,  to  be  taken  out  of  the  warehouse  to 
be  cleaned,  refreshed,  dyed,  stained,  or  calendered,  or  to  be  bleached 
or  printed,  without  payment  of  duty  of  customs,  under  security,  never- 
theless, by  bond  to  their  satisfaction,  that  such  goods  shall  be  returned 
to  the  warehouse  within  the  time  that  they  shall  appoint."  —  (3  and  4 
Will.  IV.  c.  57,  s.  35.) 

This  regulation  obviously  applies  to  foreign  manufactures, 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM. 


139 


as  a  reference  is  made  to  the  payment  of  "  duty  of  cus- 


toms." 


2,  On  an  application  to  the  lords  of  the  treasury,  stating 
some  objections  to  the  existing  mode  of  ascertaining  the 
exact  number  of  yards  of  "foreign  woollen  cloth  ware- 
housed in  this  country,"  the  application  was  granted,  so 
far  as  regards  "  such  bales  of  woollen  cloths  as  may  be 
warehoused    for    exportation    only."  -^ 

This  order,  which  bears  date  in  November,  18£0,  shows 
that  foreign  woollen  cloths  are  warehoused ;  that  some  are 
warehoused  for  exportation  only ;  and,  as  a  necessary  infer- 
ence, some  for  home  consumption. 

8.  Manufactures  of  silk,  being  the  manufactures  of 
Europe,  may  be  imported  into  certain  ports  and  warehoused 
generally,  viz  :  London,  Dublin,  Dover,  and  Southampton. 
The  same  manufactures  may  be  imported  into  other  ports 
for  exportation  only.  I  refer  to  a  work  on  the  "  Customs, 
Revenue  Laws,  and  Regulations,"  published  at  Liverpool 
by  Lowe,  Sherlock,  &  Richards,  officers  of  her  Majesty's 
customs.  The  reference  will  be  found  at  page  115,  of  the 
edition  of  1842,  under  the  head  of  "  Notes  on  Importa- 
tions," where  an  order  of  the  commissioners  of  the  treas- 
ury is  cited.  This  reference  shows  that  European  silks 
may  be  warehoused  both  for  exportation  and  consumption, 
though  under  certain  restrictions  as  to  ports,  doubtless  for 
the  purpose  of  guarding  against  frauds  on  the  revenue. 
No  such  restrictions  are  found  in  respect  to  cottons,  wool- 
lens, linens,  or  iron.  The  inference  is,  that  these  articles 
come  under  the  general  regulation,  and  may  be  freely  im- 
ported and  deposited  in  store,  either  for  exportation  or  con- 
sumption, at  the  option  of  the  importer. 

4.  By  referring  to  Ellis's  "  Laws  and  Regulations  of  the 
Customs,"  edition  of  1848,  vol.  8,  page  £99,  table  F,  it 
will  be  seen  that  "  all  goods  manufactured  of  silk,"  &c.,  are 
among  the  articles  allowed  to  be  warehoused.     I  find  the 

1  Yearly  Journal  of  Trade,  1845,  p.  97. 


140 


SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 


same  articles  in  the  edition  of  1842,  and  I  infer  that  not 
only  silks,  but  all  other  manufactured  goods  not  specially 
excluded  may  be  freely  deposited  either  for  consumption  or 
exportation. 

5,  The  same  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the  statistical 
returns  of  the  British  empire.  I  give  some  details  for  the 
year  1836,  excepting  those  relating  to  silks,  which  are  for 
the  year  1841 :  — 


I 


Imported.  . 

Exported. 

Retained  for     • 
consumption. 

Cotton  manufactures 

£698,253 

25,034 

139,796 

286,747 

526,812 

£556,117 

4,762 

11,721 

£89,916 
18,921 
128,075 
239,582 
100,505 

Wool  manufactures 

Silk  manufactures  of  Europe 
Silk  manufactures  of  India  • 

£1,676,642 
$8,383,710 

£572,600 

£576,999 
$2,884,995 

It  is  not  perceived  how  these  returns  can  be  fully  made 
out  without  reference  to  the  warehouse  operations  of  the 
kingdom.  They  show  that  foreign  manufactures  are  not 
excluded,  but  that  they  actually  enter  into  the  consumption 
of  the  country.  The  duties,  indeed,  on  most  articles  are 
quite  low,  as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  British  tariff. 
If  they  are  imported  in  small  quantities,  it  is  because  they 
are  excluded  by  the  domestic  competition  in  her  own  fab- 
rics. 

It  has  been  stated,  also,  that  on  depositing  goods  in  the 
British  warehouses  the  owner  is  required  to  declare  whether 
he  deposits  them  for  consumption  or  exportation,  and  that 
the  goods  are  governed  by  this  declaration.  Sir,  my  inves- 
tigations have  led  me  to  an  entirely  different  conclusion.  I 
find  no  such  restriction,  except  in  a  special  case,  which  con- 
firms my  inference  as  to  the  general  rule.  I  proceed  to 
state  the  result  of  my  examinations.  No  declaration  is  s 
required  when  merchandise  is  warehoused,  whether  it  is  for 
exportation  or  home  consumption,  unless  it  is  merchandise  : 


THE   WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  141 

which  cannot  be  imported  for  home  use.  In  this  case,  the 
importer  must  declare  that  he  enters  it  for  exportation,  and 
the  package  is  marked  "  exportation."  This  seems  to  be 
the  only  case  in  which  a  declaration  is  required  on  ware- 
housing merchandise.     The  proof  is  as  follows  :  — 

1.  The  law  requires  a  declaration  to  be  made  in  this 
special  case.  It  requires  none  in  any  other  case.  The 
omission  in  general  to  require  a  declaration,  and  the  exac- 
tion of  one  in  the  special  case,  are  conclusive  proof  that 
none  is  required  except  in  the  special  case. 

2.  The  form  of  the  bond,  when  a  bond  is  required,  seems 
to  prove  it.  The  condition  of  the  bond  is  for  the  payment 
of  the  full  duties  of  importation,  or  for  the  due  exportation 
of  the   merchandise.^ 

8.  It  appears  (see  commissioner's  order  of  1884<)  that 
it  is  the  practice  in  London,  "  where  a  part  of  the  original 
importation  has  been  exported,  and  a  portion  entered  for 
home  consumption,"  to  charge  the  duty  on  a  proportionate 
part,  &c.  This  seems  to  show  that  when  goods  have  been 
warehoused,  a  part  may  be  exported  and  a  part  entered  for 
home  consumption.  Though  not  conclusive,  it  raises  the 
strongest  possible  presumption  that  no  declaration  is  required 
on  warehousing.^ 

4.  No  goods  which  have  been  warehoused  can  be  taken 
out,  "  except  upon  due  entry  "  "  for  exportation,  or  upon  due 
entry  and  payment  of  the  full  duties  payable  thereon  for 
home  use."  This  shows  that  the  election  is  made  on  with- 
drawing the  goods  from  warehouse,  and  not  on  warehous- 
ing them.^ 

Sir,  it  is  extremely  unpleasant,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
labor,  to  be  compelled  to  go  into  this  extended  examination 
to  show  the  erroneousness  of  statements  made  by  gentlemen 
whose  great  respectability  is  vouched  by  the  Senator  from 
Connecticut,  —  statements  made,  according  to  their  own  rep- 
resentations, after   careful   inquiry.     I  will   not  assert  that 

.    1  Yearly  Journal  of  Trade,  1845,  p.  259.  2  jbid.  p.  251.  »  md. 


142  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


they  are  wrong.  I  do  not  deal  in  assertions.  I  give  only 
the  result  of  my  researches  into  the  regulations  of  the  sys- 
tem, citing  my  authorities  and  leaving  to  the  better  judg- 
ment of  the  Senate  to  correct  my  conclusions,  if  they  are 
erroneous.     I  state  the  result  thus :  — 

1.  All  goods  of  all  descriptions,  which  may  be  legally 
imported  into  the  kingdom,  may  be  warehoused,  except  the 
enumerated  articles  before  mentioned. 

2.  Goods  prohibited  to  be  imported  for  home  use  may 
be  imported,  even  in  foreign  vessels,  and  warehoused  for 
exportation. 

8.  All  other  goods,  excepting  those  comprehended  in  the 
two  foregoing  classes,  may  be  imported  and  warehoused, 
either  for  home  consumption  or  exportation,  without  any 
declaration,  at  the  time  of  the  entry,  whether  they  are  in- 
tended for  one  or  the  other. 

4.  The  goods  which  may  be  so  warehoused  without  a 
declaration  include  foreign  tnanufactures. 

Such  I  understand  to  be  the  British  warehouse  system. 
I  have  stated  the  facts  above  presented  on  no  authority  of 
individuals.  I  do  not  regard  such  testimony  as  legitimate 
in  the  decision  of  questions  of  legal  enactment  or  regulation. 
I  have  sought  for  my  authority  in  the  laws  and  statistics 
of  the  British  empire.  If  I  have  misunderstood  them,  it 
has  been  from  putting  an  erroneous  construction  on  the 
data  from  which  my  conclusions  are  drawn,  —  data  of  the 
highest  authenticity.^ 

The  history  of  the  warehouse  system  of  Great  Britain 
affords  an  instructive  lesson  of  the  power  of  prejudice,  kept 
alive  by  the  misrepresentations  of  interested  classes,  to  defeat 
and  delay  the  adoption  of  social  improvements  and  reforms. 
In  1738,  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  a  minister  of  great  energy 
and  intellectual  power,  undertook  to  introduce  the  system  in 

1  These  conclusions  were  drawn  from  year  1815 ;  but  no  material  alterations 

the  statute  of  the  3  and  4  William  IV.  were  made  in  them,  — nothing  to  ren- 

It  appears  that  the  laws  in  relation  to  der  necessary  any  modification  of  the 

warehousing  were  consolidated  in  the  views  herein  contained. 


J 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  143 

London  on  a  very  limited  scale,  and  I  believe  in  respect  to 
a  single  article  of  importation,  —  tobacco.  He  was  met  by 
the  furious  opposition  of  the  moneyed  capitalists  of  England, 
who  monopolized  that  branch  of  trade  through  their  ability 
to  command  the  means  of  paying  the  duties  on  the  entry. 
They  inflamed  the  populace  by  the  grossest  misrepresenta- 
tions ;  the  Parliament  House  was  surrounded  by  mobs,  the 
life  of  the  minister  was  threatened,  and  he  was  compelled  to 
submit  to  the  humiliation  of  rising  on  the  floor  of  Parlia- 
ment and  moving  such  a  postponement  as  was  equivalent  to 
a  defeat  of  the  measure.  It  is  curious  to  look  back  into  the 
history  of  that  period  and  see  with  what  violence  the  scheme 
was  denounced,  and  what  baneful  effiects  were  predicted  as 
certain  to  flow  from  it.  I  will  read  to  the  Senate  a  few  ex- 
tracts from  omollett's  continuation  of  "  Hume's  History  of 
England,"  to  show  to  what  extent  the  unscrupulousness  of 
self-interest  can  go,  and  how  successful  it  may  be  in  carrying 
popular  prejudice  along  with  it.  It  was  contended  that  it 
would  be  — 

"  Destructive  to  trade,  and  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  sub- 
ject ; "  "  that  it  would  produce  an  additional  swarm  of  excise  officers 
and  warehouse-keepers,  appointed  and  paid  by  the  treasury,  so  as  to 
multiply  the  dependents  on  the  Crown,  and  enable  it  still  further  to 
iftfluence  the  freedom  of  elections ;  that  the  traders  would  become 
slaves  to  exlcisemen  and  warehouse-keepers,  as  they  would  be  debarred 
all  access  to  their  commodities,  except  at  certain  hours,  when  attended 
by  those  officers  ;  that  the  merchant,  for  every  quantity  of  tobacco  he 
should  sell,  would  be  obliged  to  make  a  journey,  or  send  a  messenger 
to  the  office  for  a  permit,  which  could  not  be  obtained  without  trouble, 
expense,  and  delay ;  and  that,  should  a  law  be  enacted  in  consequence 
of  this  motion,  it  would,  in  all  probability,  be,  some  time  or  other,  used 
as  a  precedent  for  introducing  excise  laws  into  every  branch  of  the 
revenue;  in  which  case  the  liberty  of  Great  Britain  would  be  no 
more."  —  (Vol.  V.  p.  647.) 

These  representations  prevailed,  and  the  historian  adds :  — 

"  The  miscarriage  of  the  bill  was  celebrated  with  public  rejoicings  in 
London  and  Westminster ;  and  the  minister  was  burned  in  e^gy  by 
the  populace." 


14,4<  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

Such  was  the  fate  of  this  measure  in  1733 ;  and  it  was 
not  until  1 803  —  seventy  years  afterwards  —  that  a  suc- 
cessful effort  was  made  to  establish  it.  It  has  now  become 
the  most  important  branch  of  the  revenue  system  of  Great 
Britain,  facilitating  and  extending  vastly  the  operations  of 
her  commerce.  It  has  made  her  mercantile  interest  the 
most  prosperous  in  the  world ;  and  yet  it  was  through  the 
blind  and  mistaken  opposition  of  the  merchants  that  its 
adoption  was  so  long  delayed. 

I  repeat,  the  history  of  this  measure  affords  an  instructive 
lesson.  It  is  thus  that  interested  classes  —  or,  what  is  prac- 
tically the  same,  classes  fancying  themselves  interested  —  are 
sure  to  be  found  arrayed  against  the  introduction  of  salutary 
reforms ;  successfully  for  a  time,  but  overborne  at  last  by 
the  power  of  truth ;  never  listening  to  reason  and  argument, 
always  waiting  to  be  vanquished ;  planting  themselves  before 
the  car  of  improvement  until  they  are  in  danger  of  being 
run  over  and  crushed,  and  then  hanging  on  behind  in  impo- 
tent attempts  to  stay  its  progress. 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  some  objections  raised  by  the 
Senator  to  the  general  policy  of  the  measure.  I  understood 
him  to  say  that  the  system  of  warehousing  proposed  by  the 
bill  would  be  maintained  at  the  expense  of  the  American 
importer,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  foreign  importer  or  his 
consignee.  I  do  not  undertake  to  give  his  precise  language. 
I  state  the  proposition  in  general  terms.  In  other  words,  it 
is  contended  that  the  privilege  of  storing  goods  in  our  sea- 
ports for  domestic  consumption  or  exportation,  at  the  option 
of  the  importer,  will  have  the  effect  of  accumulating  in 
those  ports  immense  masses  of  foreign  merchandise,  which 
will  be  thrown  into  the  market  to  the  great  injury  of  the 
domestic  producer.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a 
ready  and  satisfactory  answer  to  the  objection.  Whether 
goods  are  stored  in  the  countries  where  they  are  produced, 
or  in  our  own  cities,  is  of  no  consequence  so  far  as  the  ques- 
tion of  competition  with  our  domestic  products  is  concerned, 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  145 

unless  it  can  be  shown  that  in  the  latter  case  (storing  in  our 
own  cities)  they  will  be  brought  into  the  domestic  market  at 
a  cost  materially  less.  This,  it  is  believed,  cannot  be  readily 
shown.  Whether  stored  at  home  or  abroad,  the  expense 
of  bringing  merchandise  into  the  domestic  market  must  be 
nearly  the  same.  In  either  case,  it  has  the  same  processes 
to  perform.  It  must  be  transported  from  the  factories  or 
workshops  where  it  is  produced  to  the  sea;  it  must  be 
shipped,  carried  across  the  ocean,  brought  into  our  ports, 
and,  before  it  can  enter  into  the  domestic  market  to  be  sold, 
the  impost  or  duty  must  be  paid.  The  charges  and  exac- 
tions are  the  same  in  both  cases.  If  it  is.  placed  in  store 
here  and  allowed  to  remain  for  a  limited  period  without  pay- 
ing duty,  it  is  in  no  better  condition,  so  far  as  cost  is  con- 
cerned, than  it  would  have  been  if  it  had  been  kept  in  store 
in  the  country  where  it  was  produced,  unless  storage  here  is 
cheaper,  and  this  is  questionable.  Whether  it  will  come 
into  the  domestic  market  at  all  depends  on  its  cost,  and 
the  influence  of  cost  on  the  demand  for  consumption.  As^ 
has  been  seen,  the  cost  will  be  the  same  whether  it  is  stored^ 
abroad  and  kept  there  until  it  is  required  for  exportation,  op 
whether  it  is  stored  here  until  it  is  absorbed  by  the  demand 
for  home  use.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  proposed 
remission  of  the  interest  now  exacted  on  the  duties  from 
the  date  of  the  entry  until  the  goods  go  into  the  importer's 
possession  will  save  to  the  importer  or  owner  the  amount 
of  the  interest ;  and  I  believe  it  to  be  difficult  to  show  that 
there  will  be  any  other  difference  in  cost  between  goods  on 
which  the  duties  are  paid  on  the  entry  and  those  which  are 
stored  for  a  limited  period  without  exacting  the  payment  of 
the  duties  until  they  enter  into  the  consumption  of  the  coun- 
try. There  may  be,  however,  another  difference,  though 
inconsiderable,  if,  as  I  suppose,  the  privilege  of  storing 
goods  shall  have  the  effect  of  enlarging  the  circle  of  compe- 
tition in  the  business  of  importation  ;  for,  to  the  extent  that 
the    regular    dealers    purchase  abroad,   they  will   save  the 

19 


146  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


charges  on  foreign  agencies  here.  To  the  present  exaction 
of  interest  ou  the  duties,  I  am  totally  opposed.  It  is  but 
a  means  of  adding  indirectly  to  the  amount  of  the  duties  ; 
and  I  believe  it  ought,  on  every  just  principle,  to  be  abol- 
ished, without  regard  to  any  plan  of  storing  goods.  Still, 
though  I  consider  the  exaction  wrong  in  principle,  I  do  not 
admit  that  it  adds  so  materially  to  the  cost  of  imported  mer- 
chandise as  to  give  any  appreciable  advantage  to  domestic 
products  of  a  like  character  in  the  home  market.  Nor  have 
I  been  able  to  satisfy  myself  that  the  measure  proposed  by 
the  bill  under  consideration  would  add  much  to  the  public 
revenue.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  estimates  the  in- 
crease of  revenue  at  one  million  dollars  ;  and  his  opinion 
is  entitled  to  great  respect.  From  his  official  position,  he 
has  within  his  reach  means  of  information  not  always  acces- 
sible to  others.  It  strikes  me,  however,  as  a  large  estimate. 
At  least  it  is  conjectural.  But  if  it  shall  prove  to  be  accurate, 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  imported  merchandise,  on  which 
this  increased  revenue  is  charged,  will  be  altogether  of  those 
descriptions  which  come  into  competition  with  our  own  man- 
ufactures ;  and  it  will,  at  all  events,  find  a  market  for  an 
equal  amount  of  our  own  products.  Merchandise  will  be 
stored,  unquestionably,  in  very  large  quantities,  for  exporta- 
tion. So  far  as  the  importation  and  reexportation  of  this 
merchandise  extends  the  carrying  trade,  it  will  aid  the  treas- 
ury through  the  increase  of  the  tonnage  duties,  which  are, 
however,  very  inconsiderable.  The  amount  of  imposts  can 
only  be  augmented  by  bringing  a  greater  quantity  of  foreign 
merchandise  into  the  home  market.  Whether  this  effect 
shall  take  place  depends  on  the  demand,  which  can  only  be 
increased  through  a  diminution  of  the  cost  of  foreign  mer- 
chandise, thus  bringing  it  within  the  means  of  a  larger  class 
of  consumers,  or  by  enabling  it  to  enter  on  such  terms  of 
advantage  into  competition  with  our  own  products  of  a  like 
character  as  to  expel  the  latter  from  the  market.  Of  course, 
I  do  not  take  into  consideration  the  increased  consumption 


} 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM. 


147 


arising  from  an  increase  of  our  population.  If  I  am  right  in 
my  positions,  none  of  the  consequences  referred  to  will  be 
realized.  The  cost  of  foreign  merchandise  will  not  be 
materially  affected  by  the  proposed  plan  ;  and  all  the  appre- 
hensions founded  upon  such  a  supposition  will  prove  ground- 
less. But  if  I  am  wrong,  then  the  diminished  cost  of  for- 
eign merchandise  will  be  so  much  gained  to  the  great  body 
of  the  consumers.  In  any  event,  the  reduction  of  cost  will 
only  be  to  the  extent  of  the  indirect  increase  of  the  duties 
by  exacting  interest  on  them  from  the  date  of  the  entry  of 
the  merchandise  on  which  they  are  charged ;  and  to  this 
extent  every  principle  of  common  fairness  is  on  the  side  of 
the  reduction. 

The  second  objection  is,  that  the  proposed  plan  of  admit- 
ting foreign  merchandise  to  the  benefit  of  the  warehouse 
system  will  throw  the  whole  business  of  importation  into 
the  hands  of  foreign  capitalists ;  that  foreign  manufacturers 
will  have  their  agents  here ;  that  they  will  fill  our  seaports 
with  their  products,  and  exercise  an  unlimited  control  over 
the  home  market.  So  far  am  I,  sir,  from  feeling  the  force 
of  this  objection,  that  I  consider  it  wholly  groundless.  For- 
eigners never  have  had,  and  are  not  likely  to  have,  a  very 
large  share  in  the  business  of  importation,  taking  all  our 
imports  together.  They  send  their  products  here  to  some 
extent,  and  have  their  agents  here  to  make  sales  ;  but  their 
participation  in  the  business  of  importing  constitutes  a 
very  inconsiderable  portion  of  our  wholfe  import  trade.  In- 
deed, I  regard  the  present  system  of  exacting  the  payment 
of  duties  in  cash  on  the  entry  of  merchandise  as  much 
better  calculated  to  throw  the  business  of  importation  into 
the  hands  of  large  capitalists,  native  and  foreign,  than  a 
warehouse  system.  If  a  cargo  of  merchandise  worth  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars  is  imported,  and  the  duties  are 
thirty  per  cent.,  it  will  require,  under  the  present  system, 
one  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  dollars  to  purchase  the 
merchandise  and  pay  the  duties  on  the  entry.     With  the 


148  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

privilege  of  placing  the  goods  in  store  without  paying  the 
duties,  it  will  require  only  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  to 
make  the  importation.  The  merchandise  will  be  withdrawn 
in  limited  quantities,  as  sales  are  made,  and  the  duties  will 
be  paid  on  these  separate  quantities  as  they  are  delivered  to 
the  importer  or  owner.  In  one  case,  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  will  suffice  for  the  transaction;  in  the  other,  one 
hundred  and  thirty  thousand  dollars  will  be  required.  Now, 
it  is  quite  clear,  that,  in  proportion  as  the  amount  of  capital 
required  for  the  importation  of  merchandise  is  increased, 
you  diminish  the  ability  of  importers  of  moderate  means  to 
make  purchases  for  themselves  abroad,  and  you  multiply  the 
chances  of  making  the  business  of  importing  a  monopoly  in 
the  hands'  of  capitalists.  They  bring  merchandise  into  the 
country,  pay  the  duties,  and  compel  the  regular  dealers  to 
purchase  them,  with  the  addition  of  interest  on  the  duties, 
commissions  for  agency,  &c.,  —  either  depriving  the  mer- 
chant of  a  portion  of  his  legitimate  profit,  or  enhancing  the 
price  of  the  merchandise  before  it  reaches  the  consumer, 
and  compelling  the  latter  to  bear  the  burden  of  these  inter- 
mediate charges.  The  privilege  of  storing  goods  will  tend 
to  break  up,  to  some  extent,  this  system  of  monopoly,  by 
dispensing  with  the  payment  of  the  duties  until  the  mer- 
chandise is  required  for  consumption.  Merchandise  will  be 
more  likely  to  be  purchased  abroad  at  the  places  of  pro- 
duction, instead  of  being  procured  of  agents  here,  with  the 
commissions  and  charges  of  these  agencies  superadded.  A 
larger  number  of  individuals  will  be  able  to  make  importa- 
tions under  the  warehouse  system ;  and  whatever  tends  to 
withdraw  any  branch  of  business  from  the  hands  of  a  few 
persons,  and  to  divide  it  among  many,  cannot  but  be  bene- 
ficial to  the  community. 

But  admitting  the  objection  to  be  well-founded,  —  admit- 
ting that  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  warehouse  system 
will  be  to  enable  foreign  manufacturers  to  place  their  pro- 
ductions in  store  here,  ready  to  be  introduced  at  any  moment 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM. 


149 


into  the  home  market,  —  the  answer  is,  that  they  never  can 
be  so  introduced  without  first  paying  the  duties,  and  that  the 
domestic  producer  is  equally  secure,  whether  they  are  stored 
here  or  abroad.  The  force  of  the  objection  is  further  weak- 
ened 6y  the  consideration,  that,  through  the  rapid  commu- 
nication between  the  Eastern  and  Western  continents  by 
steam,  a  few  weeks  are  all  that  is  necessary  now  to  bring 
into  our  market  unlimited  quantities  of  foreign  merchandise. 
The  home  market  can  only  be  controlled  by  a  monopoly  of 
the  business  of  importation ;  and  this,  if  my  positions  are 
correct,  will  not  be  so  likely  to  occur  under  a  warehouse 
system  as  under  a  system  of  cash  payment  on  the  entry  of 
merchandise. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  the  Senator  referred  to 
the  extent  to  which  foreigners  are  now  engaged  in  the 
import  trade  of  the  United  States,  and,  as  I  think,  estimated 
it  too  largely.  On  this  point  a  brief  explanation  is  neces- 
sary. I  presume  it  will  be  admitted  that,  in  making  the 
estimate,  w^e  must  confine  our  attention  to  the  city  of  New 
York.  There  are  few  foreign  importers  in  Boston,  Phila- 
delphia, Baltimore,  Charleston,  or  New  Orleans, — not 
enough,  if  I  am  well  informed,  to  make  any  perceptible 
variation  in  the  estimate.  I  take  it  for  granted,  also,  that  in 
the  city  of  New  York  woollens,  cottons,  and  silks  are  the 
chief  imports  on  foreign  account.  The  value  of  these  ar- 
ticles imported  into  that  city  in  1845  was  as  follows:  — 

Woollens ' $8,154,534 

Cottons 8,863,973 

Silks 8,789,220 

$25,807,727 

Every  species  of  manufactures  of  wool,  cotton,  and  silk  is 
here  included. 

It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  precisely  to  what  extent  foreign 
merchants  are  concerned  in  these  imports.  All  estimates 
must  be,  in  a  great  degree,  conjectural.  The  Senator's 
estimate  is  higher  than  my  own.    From  the  best  information 


150  SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 


I  can  obtain,  I  am  not  satisfied  that  much  more  than  half  is 
imported  on  foreign  account.  But  I  am  disposed  to  be 
liberal,  and  give  nearly  two  thirds,  —  $17,000,000.  The 
value  of  the  whole  amount  of  our  imports  in  1845  was, 
in  round  numbers,  $117,000,000;  imported  on  foreign 
account,  $17,000,000 ;  leaving  a  balance  in  our  favor  of 
$100,000,000. 

Some  of  these  foreign  importers  have  American  partners. 
They  hire  our  dwellings  and  warehouses,  put  the  industry 
of  our  seaports  in  requisition,  contribute  in  a  variety  of 
modes  to  the  wealth  of  the  country,  and  send  abroad  the 
products  of  our  soil  and  labor. 

In  illustration  of  this  portion  of  his  remarks,  the  Senator 
referred  to  the  statistics  of  our  commerce,  to  show  how 
much  foreign  tonnage  had  increased  under  the  reciprocity 
treaties,  and  that  a  large  portion  of  our  commercial  inter- 
course with  other  nations  is  carried  on  in  foreign  vessels. 

It  has  been  a  common  complaint  in  past  years,  and  con- 
tinues to  some  extent  to  be  so  still,  that  our  commerce  is 
going  into  the  hands  of  foreigners.  Looking  at  our  statisti- 
cal returns,  they  seem,  at  first  glance,  to  confirm  the  impres- 
sion that  the  complaint  is  well  founded.  But  our  judgment 
ought  not  to  be  formed  on  superficial  examination.  If  we 
go  back  to  the  year  1824,  (I  take  the  year  the  Senator  has 
referred  to,)  we  find  the  tonnage  of  American  vessels,  which 
cleared  from  the  United  States,  to  have  been  919,^08,  and 
the  tonnage  of  foreign  vessels  cleared  to  have  been  102,552, 
or  little  less  than  nine  to  one  in  favor  of  ours.  In  1845,  the 
American  tonnage  cleared  was  2,058,9775  ^^^  the  foreign 
930,275,  a  little  more  than  two  to  one  in  our  favor,  show- 
ing an  enormous  difference  in  the  proportion  of  increase. 
While  ours  has  but  little  more  than  doubled,  the  foreign  has 
increased  more  than  ninefold.  This  great  increase  in  the  for- 
eign tonnage  employed  in  carrying  to  and  from  the  United 
States  the  subjects  of  commercial  exchange  would  certainly 
furnish  just  cause  of  alarm,  if  our  own  tonnage,  so  employed. 


I 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM. 


151 


had  been   stationary.      But  it  has  been  greatly  and  very 
rapidly  increasing. 

During  the  last  four  years  it  has  increased  more  than 
500,000  tons,  or  at  the  rate  of  34  per  cent.,  while  the  for- 
eign has  increased  about  180,000  tons,  or  less  than  25  per 
cent. ;  so  that  it  may  be  fairly  presumed  that  the  full  effect 
of  the  reciprocity  treaties  has  been  felt.  If  we  compare  the 
proportion  in  which  British  and  foreign  tonnage  is  employ^'d 
in  the  foreign  trade  of  Great  Britain,  we  shall  find  less  cause 
to  be  dissatisfied  with  our  own  condition  in  the  same  respect. 
I  take  the  year  ending  the  5th  of  January,  1841,  (I  cannot 
obtain  the  returns  of  a  later  year,)  and  find  the  vessels  of 
the  United  Kingdoni  "  entered  inwards "  from  all  parts  of 
the  world  were  14,870,  with  a  tonnage  of  £,807,367, — 
exceeding  ours  in  1845  only  about  800,000.  In  the  same 
year,  the  number  of  foreign  vessels  entered  "  inwards  "  was 
8355  and  their  tonnage  1,S97?840.^  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  foreign  tonnage  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade  of  Great 
Britain  in  1840  was  nearly  equal  to  one  half  of  the  amount 
of  her  own  tonnage.  With  us,  the  proportion  of  foreign 
tonnage  engaged  in  our  commerce  to  our  own  is  more  than 
a  third,  but  less  than  half,  and  somewhat  less  than  the  pro- 
portion engaged  in  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain.  If  we 
test  the  relative  importance  of  the  commercial  transactions 
in  the  two  cases  by  the  tonnage  of  all  the  vessels,  we  find 
those  engaged  in   our   commerce  average   S14  tons  each, 

1  Since  this  speech  was  made,  I  have  found  later  returns  of  the  commercial 
statistics  of  Great  Britain,  from  which  the  following  details  are  obtained  :  — 
Shipping  entered  inwards  in  the  United  Kingdom  from  foreign  parts. 


TEAES. 

BRITISH  AND  IRISH   VESSELS. 

FOREIGN  VESSELS. 

No. 

Tons. 

No. 

Tons. 

1842 

1843 
1844 

18,525 
18,987 
19,500 

3,361,211 
3,294,725 
3,545,346 

9527 
8054 
8541 

1,291,165 
1,205,303 
1,301,950 

By  this  statement,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  tonnage  of  Great  Britain  engaged  in 
her  commerce  with  foreign  States  has  increased,  notwithstanding  her  reciprocity- 
treaties,  in  a  greater  ratio  than  foreign  tonnage  engaged  in  the  same  commerce. 


152  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

while  those    engaged    in    the  commerce  of   Great  Britain 
average  only.  181  tons  each. 

If  we  pursue  this  examination  further,  we  shall  find  still 
less  cause  for  concern.  We  border  on  the  provinces  of  Great 
Britain,  and  a  constant  intercourse  is  maintained  between 
them  and  us  in  a  variety  of  commercial  transactions  of  com- 
paratively trivial  importance,  but  constituting  a  large  aggre- 
gate. This  circumstance  enables  us  to  account  for  a  fact 
which,  at  first  sight,  strikes  us  with  some  surprise,  and 
excites  some  apprehension.  We  find  the  number  of  vessels 
that  entered  the  United  States  in  1845  was  13,7^8.  Of 
this  number  8188  were  American,  and  5590  foreign. 
This  seems  a  large  proportion ;  but  when  we  look  into  the 
detail,  we  find  that  of  these  5590  vessels,  4f262  —  nearly 
four  fifths  —  are  from  the  British  North  American  colonies, 
and  that  their  tonnage  amounts  to  468,7^8,  (about  one  half 
the  whole  amount  of  the  foreign  tonnage  engaged  in  our 
commerce,)  or  an  average  of  109  tons  each, —  generally 
small  vessels,  engaged  in  the  minutest  operations  of  trade. 
These  details  will  be  fully  shown  by  House  Document  No. 
18  of  the  present  session,  page  218.  Turning  to  page  282, 
we  find  the  number  of  foreign  vessels  that  entered  the  dis- 
tricts of  Cape  Vincent,  Oswegatchie,  Oswego,  Genesee, 
Niagara,  Champlain,  and  Sackett's  Harbor,  was  16£7?  with 
an  aggregate  tonnage  of  £7^?798.  These  districts  are  on 
lakes  Ontario  and  Champlain,  and  the  river  St.  Lawrence. 
Add  to  these  entries  67  foreign  vessels  which  entered  Cuya- 
hoga, on  Lake  Erie,  and  Detroit,  on  the  river  of  that  name, 
with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  7708,  and  we  have  1694 
foreign  vessels,  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  281,101,  en- 
tering our  interior  lake  and  river  ports,  on  waters  constitut- 
ing the  boundary  between  us  and  Upper  Canada.  These 
vessels  are  for  the  most  part  steamers,  running  between  the 
ports  on  the  British  side  and  our  own,  and  stopping  at 
several  points  in  each  direction,  and  always  counting  one 
entry  and  one  clearance  each  trip.      Thus  it  will  be  per- 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  153 

ceived  that  the  number  of  foreign  vessels  entering  the 
United  States  from  the  British  North  American  provinces, 
after  deducting  those  engaged  in  the  lake  traffic,  is  re- 
duced to  £568,  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  182,647. 

By  turning  again  to  Document  No.  18,  page  282,  we  find 
699  foreign  vessels  entering  the  district  of  Passamaquoddy, 
with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  54,412,  or  an  average  of  7^ 
tons  per  vessel.  The  district  of  Passamaquoddy  lies  upon 
the  confines  of  New  Brunswick ;  and  from  its  position  and 
the  average  size  of  the  foreign  vessels  entering  it,  they  are 
obviously  small  craft  engaged  in  trivial  exchanges.  The 
aggregate  number  of  foreign  vessels  from  the  British  North 
American  provinces  is  now  shrunk  below  2000.  One  more 
reference  to  the  same  page  of  the  document,  and  I  shall 
dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject.  We  find  1265  foreign 
vessels  entering  the  port  of  Boston,  with  an  aggregate 
tonnage  of  101,491,  or  an  average  of  80  tons  per  vessel. 
A  large  portion  of  these  are  small  craft,  schooners  and 
sloops  from  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick,  laden  with 
plaster,  wood,  and  coal.  Portland,  Gloucester,  Salem,  and 
New  York  have  their  share  of  these  visitors  from  the  British 
provinces.  The  whole  of  this  portion  of  the  foreign  ton- 
nage entering  the  United  States  is  thus  accounted  for,  and 
the  foreign  vessels  legitimately  engaged  in  our  external  trade 
are  reduced  to  1328. 

Throwing  entirely  out  of  view  the  commercial  intercourse 
between  the  United  States  and  the  North  American  colonies 
of  Great  Britain,  in  the  vessels  of  both,  the  vessels  and 
tonnage  engaged  in  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  with 
all  other  countries  would  stand  as  follows :  Vessels  of  the 
United  States,  5267;  foreign  vessels,  1328;  —  about  four 
to  one.  Tonnage  of  the  United  States,  1,351,127;  foreign 
tonnage,  446,815  ;  —  more  than  three  to  one. 

To  show  how  fallacious  a  cursory  examination  of  our 
commercial  statements  would  prove  as  a  criterion  of  the 
trade  of  the  country,  it   is   only  necessary  to  look  at  the 

20 


154  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

district  of  Cape  Vincent,  near  the  head  of  the  river  St. 
Lawrence,  where  the  lake  steamers  touch.  By  the  return, 
(page  286,)  18&J  vessels  appear  to  have  entered  it,  with  an 
aggregate  tonnage  of  881,867,  almost  rivalling  New  York 
in  entries  and  tonnage.  By  turning  to  page  S40  of  the 
same  document,  it  appears  that  the  tonnage  belonging  to  the 
city  of  New  York  is  550,859,  while  that  of  Cape  Vincent 
is  2&J0.  While  the  revenue  collected  at  New  York  ex- 
ceeded eighteen  millions  of  dollars,  that  collected  at  Cape 
Vincent  was  $779  and  a  few  cents,  or  about  an  average  of 
half  a  dollar  for  each  vessel  entered  in  the  district.  I 
exhibit  the  details  of  this  case  to  prove  how  deceptive  the 
returns  are  when  assumed  as  a  criterion  of  the  extent  of  our 
commerce.  It  is  only  by  a  careful  analysis  of  them  that  the 
truth  can  be  reached  and  false  impressions  removed. 

One  word  more  on  this  subject  of  tonnage.  It  has  been 
supposed  that  a  large  portion  of  the  trade  carried  on  by 
foreign  vessels  was  circuitous,  —  that  is,  that  foreign  vessels 
were  in  the  habit  of  coming  here  with  cargoes  not  the  prod- 
uce of  the  countries  to  which  they  belonged,  and  that  they 
were  in  the  habit  of  departing  with  cargoes  for  other  coun- 
tries than  those  to  which  they  belonged.  This  is,  to  some 
extent,  true ;  but  the  amount  of  this  circuitous  intercourse  is 
much  less  than  has  been  supposed.  I  have  taken  the  trouble 
to  look  into  this  branch  of  our  commerce.  I  have  analyzed 
the  commercial  tables,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  where 
the  foreign  vessels,  which  enter  our  ports,  come  from  and 
where  they  go  when  they  clear.  It  has  cost  some  labor,  but 
it  is  fully  repaid  by  the  result.  Of  5587  foreign  vessels 
entering  the  United  States  in  1845,  5880  came  from  the 
countries  to  which  they  belonged,  and  2(fjf  from  other  coun- 
tries ;  and  of  5588  which  cleared  from  the  United  States, 
5254^  sailed  for  their  own  countries,  and  S29  for  other  coun- 
tries than  those  to  which  they  belonged.  Thus  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  direct  trade  in  foreign  vessels  between  the 
United  States  and  those  countries  to  which  the  vessels  be- 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  I55 

long  constitutes  more  than  nineteen  twentieths  of  the 
whole.  Throwing  the  British  North  American  provinces 
out  of  the  account,  the  circuitous  trade  in  foreign  vessels 
constitutes  less  than  one  sixth  of  the  whole  amount  of  our 
trade,  direct  and  circuitous,  in  foreign  vessels. 

But  it  is  not  alone  to  the  number  of  American  and  foreign 
vessels  engaged  in  our  foreign  commerce  that  we  are  to  look 
for  the  proportion  in  which  they  participate  in  it.  We  must 
see  .also  what  they  carry ;  and  I  now  proceed  to  show  to 
what  extent  the  commercial  exchanges  of  the  country  are 
carried  on  in  foreign  vessels.  The  statistical  facts  I  shall 
state  are  taken  from  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, transmitting  the  annual  report  of  commerce  and  navi- 
gation, printed  as  House  Document  No.  18  of  the  present 
session  of  Congress,  —  the  same  document  I  have  already 
so  often  referred  to.  At  page  4S  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
value  of  the  exports  of  domestic  products  during  the  year 
ending  the  SOth  of  June,  1845,  amounted  to  $99,^99,77^. 
Of  this  amount  ^'J 5^4^88,128  were  exported  in  American, 
and  $S8,8 16,658  in  foreign  vessels,  —  or  more  than  three 
to  one  in  favor  of  American  vessels.  During  the  same 
period  the  value  of  the  exports  of  foreign  products,  articles 
imported  into  the  United  States  from  foreign  countries  and 
reexported,  amounted  to  $15,846,880,  of  which  amount 
$11,459,819  were  exported  in  American,  and  $8,887,511 
in  foreign  vessels, — or  a  little  less  than  three  to  one  in  favor 
of  American  vessels.  For  these  details  I  refer  to  page  95 
of  the  same  document.  The  whole  value  of  our  exports, 
domestic  and  foreign,  was  $114,646,606;  and  of  this 
amount,  $86,94^,44£  were  exported  in  American,  and 
$27,7^^4*, 164  in  foreign  vessels,  —  or  three  millions  and  a 
half  more  than  three  to  one  in  favor  of  the  former.  This  is 
a  respectable  proportion,  though  not  so  large  as  is  desirable  ; 
but  our  exports  constitute  only  a  part  of  the  foreign  trade  of 
the  country,  and  that  part  which  can  with  least  propriety  be 
taken  as  a  criterion  of  the  whole,  as  further  investigation 


156  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

will  show.     It  is  to  the  imports  rather  than  to  the  export 
that  we  must  look  for  the  extent  of  our  participation  in  car^ 
rying'  to  and  from  our  own  ports  the  products  which  mak^ 
up  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  country.     Our  imports  arc 
chiefly  for  our  own  consumption ;  they  are  purchased  for  the! 
most  part  on  our  account,  and  for  these  reasons  they  are 
imported  principally,  as  is  naturally  to  be  expected,  in  our 
own  vessels.     Our  exports,  to  some  extent,  are  purchased  on 
foreign  account,  and  they  are  naturally  carried  out  in  foreign 
vessels  in  a  like  proportion. 

By  referring  to  page  19^  of  the  same  document,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  value  of  our  imports  for  the  year  ending 
the  80th  June,  184^5,  amounted  to  $1 17,^254^,564.  Of 
this  amount,  $102,438,481  were  brought  in  American,  and 
$14,816,088  in  foreign  vessels,  —  or  nearly  seven  to  one 
in  favor  of  American  vessels.  In  carrying  the  articles  im- 
ported into  the  country,  therefore,  there  is  a  very  large  differ- 
ence in  favor  of  our  own  vessels. 

Taking  the  imports  and  exports  together,  they  amount  to 
$281,901,170.  Of  this  amount,  $189,880,928  were  car- 
ried  in  American,  and  $42,520,247  in  foreign  vessels, — 
or  nearly  four  and  a  half  to  one  in  favor  of  the  former. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  value  of  our  im- 
ports in  foreign  vessels  has  scarcely  varied  half  a  million  of 
dollars  for  any  entire  year  since  1889,  excepting  in  1842, 
a  year,  as  all  know,  of  extraordinary  depression.  With 
that  exception,  the  lowest  amount  imported  in  foreign  vessels 
in  any  one  year  since  1889  was  $14,260,862,  and  the  high- 
est $14,816,088.  The  average  of  our  imports  in  foreign 
vessels  for  the  last  few  years  — excluding  1842  and  the  nine 
months  preceding  the  80th  June,  1848,  when  the  termina- 
tion of  the  fiscal  year  was  changed  —  amounts  to  $14,584,- 
978"  During  the  same  period,  and  making  the  same  excep- 
tions, our  imports  in  American  vessels  varied  from  $92,- 
802,852,  in  1840,  the  lowest  amount,  to  $118,221,877,  in 
1841,  the  highest  amount  in  the  series  of  years  referred  to, 
—  a  variation  of  more  than  twenty  millions. 


THE  WAREHOUSE  SYSTEM. 


157 


Of  our  imports  in  foreign  vessels,  ^'/,354^,S04f  are  from 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  her 
colonial  possessions,  —  or  about  one  half  of  the  whole  amount 
of  those  imports.  Our  imports  in  our  own  vessels,  from 
the  same  countries,  amounted  to  ^4^1,128,362,  —  nearly 
seven  to  one  in  our  favor. 

If  we  add  to  the  imports  in  foreign  vessels  from  Great 
Britain  and  her  possessions,  as  above  stated,  the  imports 
in  foreign  vessels  from  the  Hanse  Towns,  amounting  to 
$^,761,048,  they  will  give  together  an  aggregate  of  $10,- 
115,854,  —  leaving  only  $4,700,229  of  imports  in  foreign 
vessels  to  be  distributed  among  all  the  other  countries  on 
the  globe  with  which  we  have  commercial  connections.  Of 
this  latter  amount,  a  little  more  than  one  million  comes  from 
France,  a  little  more  than  half  a  million  from  Denmark, 
Sweden,  and  Norway,  combined,  and  the  residue  from  some 
thirty  different  countries,  and  in  amounts  falling  short  of 
half  a  million  in  each  case. 

Such  is  the  condition  of  our  import  trade,  so  far  as  it  is 
carried  on  in  foreign  vessels.  I  see  nothing  alarming  in  it. 
It  ministers  in  various  modes  to  our  own  industry.  The 
vessels  of  other  nations  which  find  their  way  to  our  ports, 
bringing  with  them  the  products  of  their  own  soil  or  the 
fabrics  of  their  own  art,  pay  tribute  to  us  by  augmenting 
our  revenue,  purchasing,  to  some  extent,  in  our  ports  the 
supplies  they  require  for  their  voyages,  and  carrying  back 
with  them  the  products  of  our  own  labor.  I  am  satis- 
fied with  the  extent  to  which  we  participate  in  this  portion 
of  the  great  system  of  exchanges  we  are  carrying  on  with 
other  countries.  If  our  export  trade  stood  upon  a  foot- 
ing as  favorable,  it  would  leave  little  else  to  be  desired. 
Even  as  it  is,  taking  our  exports  and  imports  together,  the 
extent  to  which  foreign  vessels  participate  in  the  business  of 
carrying  furnishes  no  cause  for  uneasiness.  Nor  do  I  see 
any  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  future  will  present  a  more 
unfavorable  result. 


158  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

I  now  resume  the  examination  of  objections  to  the  hill, 
and  will  dispose  of  them  in  the  briefest  manner.  In  respect 
to  the  necessity  of  building  stores  at  the  public  expense,  I 
will  only  say  that  during  the  late  administration  inquiries 
were  addressed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  a  large 
number  of  individuals,  some  of  them  holding  offices  in  the 
revenue  department,  and  others  engaged  in  mercantile  pur- 
suits in  our  principal  seaports.  I  have  examined  all  the 
answers  I  could  find ;  and  of  eighty-eight  there  are  eighty- 
four  expressing  the  opinion  that  suitable  stores  for  warehous- 
ing goods  may  be  hired,  and  only  four  expressing  a  contrary 
opinion,  I  have  looked  over  the  documents  in  which  they 
are  contained  in  haste,  and  may  have  committed  mistakes  in 
the  enumeration,  but  I  think  not  to  such  an  extent  as  mate- 
rially to  impair  its  accuracy. 

An  army  of  officers  (said  the  Senator  from  Connecticut) 
will  be  required  to  carry  on  the  system,  and  it  will  lead  to 
innumerable  frauds.  Sir,  these  were  some  of  the  arguments 
against  the  British  system,  as  will  be  seen  by  referring  to 
the  extract  I  have  given  from  Smollett.  And  if  the  Senator 
will  permit  me,  I.  will  remind  him  that  at  the  close  of  the 
last  session  of  Congress  he  raised  the  same  objections  to  a 
bill  allowing  a  drawback  of  duties  on  goods  transported  from 
the  United  States  to  the  adjacent  British  provinces.  The 
bill  became  a  law,  and  has  been  most  salutary  in  practice. 
Not  an  additional  custom-house  officer,  as  I  believe,  has  been 
appointed  under  it,  nor  have  I  heard  any  allegation  of  fraud 
arising  from  the  more  extended  commercial  intercourse  to 
which  it  has  led.  I  trust  and  believe  that  the  apprehensions 
of  my  friend  from  Connecticut  will  prove  as  groundless  now 
as  they  did  then. 

One  of  the  closing  remarks  of  the  Senator  was,  that 
there  was  no  analogy  between  this  bill  and  the  act  of  1799, 
in  respect  to  the  deposit  of  goods  in  the  public  stores.  I 
differ  with  him  in  opinion  entirely.  I  see  a  strong  analogy 
between  them.     The  Senator  said  the  provision  in  the  act 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  159 

of  1799  vvas  intended  to  secure  the  duties  on  unclaimed 
goods,  and  that  its  object  was  pubHc,  and  not  the  conven- 
ience of  individuals.  Sir,  I  think  he  will  admit,  on  further 
consideration,  that  he  puts  too  narrow  a  construction  on  that 
act.  It  applied  also  to  goods  deposited  in  store  with  the 
consent  of  the  owner,  consignee,  or  master  of  the  vessel, 
and  authorized  them  to  be  received  after  five  days'  notice 
to  the  collector.  The  Senator  is  learned  in  the  law,  and  I 
need  only  remind  him  of  the  rule,  that,  whenever  an  author- 
ity is  conferred  on  a  public  officer,  and  the  exercise  of  the 
authority  may  be  beneficial  to  third  persons,  it  is  his  duty, 
on  the  application  of  the  parties  interested,  to  act.  The 
term  consent  must,  therefore,  be  deemed  synonymous  with 
request ;  and  such  I  beheve  it  is  in  practice ;  for,  as  I  said 
when  I  explained  to  the  Senate  the  provisions  of  this  bill, 
vessels  in  haste  to  enter  on  the  return-voyage  are  constantly 
unladen  under  the  five  days'  order.  Let  us  pursue  this 
question  of  analogy  a  little  further.  What  were  the  leading 
provisions  in  force  in  1799  in  respect  to  the  storage  and 
reexportation  of  foreign  merchandise '?  Storage  for  nine 
months,  no  interest  on  the  duties,  and  one  and  one  fourth 
per  cent,  deduction  on  the  drawback.  What  are  the  provis- 
ions .in  force  now  1  Storage  for  sixty  and  ninety  days,  in- 
terest at  six  per  cent,  on  the  duties,  and  two  and  a  half  per 
cent,  deduction  on  the  drawback.  The  bill  under  consider- 
ation is  intended  to  remove  the  rigors  of  the  present  law, 
and  to  restore  and  extend  the  privileges  of  the  old.  Sir,  so 
strong  do  I  consider  the  analogy  between  the  provisions  of 
the  bill  under  consideration  and  the  provisions  of  the  act 
of  1799,  that  I  would  almost  be  willing  to-  take  the  latter, 
with  a  mere  extension  of  the  time  allowed  for  storing  goods, 
and  ask  no  more. 

But,  sir,  I  have  trespassed  too  long  on  the  indulgence  of 
the  Senate,  and  with  a  brief  reference  to  a  single  topic  I 
will  bring  my  remarks  to  a  close. 

It  is  said  that  this  is  a  measure  calculated  for  the  exclu- 


160  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

sive  benefit  of  New  York,  and  appeals  were  made  to  Sena- 
tors from  other  States  to  take  notice  that  the  bill  contained 
no  provision  for  rewarehousing  goods  when  once  deposited 
in  store  at  the  place  of  importation.  In  reply  to  this  appeal 
I  wish  to  say,  that,  after  the  bill  was  drawn,  a  provision  to 
allow  goods  to  be  removed  from  one  collection  district  to  an- 
other, in  the  manner  in  which  they  may  now  be  transported 
for  reexportation,  with  the  benefit  of  drawback,  was  sug- 
gested by  a  distinguished  Senator  from  the  South,  and  I 
assured  him  that  if  such  an  amendment  was  proposed,  I 
should  not  object  to  it. 

But,  with  such  an  amendment  or  without  it,  my  sincere 
belief  is,  that  New  York  is  no  more  interested  in  this  meas- 
ure than  some  other  seaports  in  the  Union.  She  is  the  cen- 
tre of  commerce  now.  A  warehouse  system  can  make  her 
no  more.  But  I  believe  its  tendency  is  to  make  other  cities 
participate,  to  a  greater  extent  than  they  do  now,  in  the 
commerce  of  the  country.  Its  tendency  is  to  make  them 
depots  of  merchandise  for  the  supply  of  the  interior  dis- 
tricts of  which  they  are  respectively  the  outlets  :  —  Boston, 
for  the  New  England  district,  which  lies  back  and  north  of 
her,  not  great  in  territorial  extent,  but  wonderful  in  activity 
and  physical  power,  with  a  network  of  railways  covering  it 
and  connecting  it  with  her  ;  Philadelphia,  for  the.  rich  in- 
terior of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  still  more  western  districts 
which  that  State  has  rendered  tributary  to  her  by  means  of 
the  internal  channels  of  communication  of  which  the  city  is 
the  terminus  ;  Baltimore,  Charleston,  and  Savannah  for  the 
interior  districts  which  receive  their  supplies  through  those 
cities  ;  and  last,  though  among  the  first  in  importance,  New 
Orleans,  with  the  immense  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the 
almost  boundless  regions  upon  the  Missouri,  the  Arkansas, 
and  the  Red  rivers,  which  look  to  her  as  their  only  outlet, 
and  their  only  point  of  transshipment,  both  for  their  inward 
and  outward  trade.  I  believe  these  cities,  in  proportion  to 
their  population  and  commerce,  will  be  as  much  benefited  as 


THE  WAREHOUSE   SYSTEM.  151 

New  York  by  the  measure  under  consideration.  They  will 
become  depots  for  the  merchandise  required  to  supply  the 
several  districts  dependent  on  them,  and  New  Orleans  may 
also  confidently  look  for  a  large  and  valuable  share  of  the 
export  trade  in  foreign  products  deposited  for  reexportation 
in  her  warehouses.  As  Senators  from  other  States  have 
been  appealed  to,  I  desire  to  commend  the  Senators  from 
Louisiana  to  an  attentive  consideration  of  the  commercial 
statements  on  their  tables.  New  Orleans  sends  abroad 
domestic  products  to  the  value  of  twenty-five  millions  of 
dollars.  New  York  sends  only  about  ninety  thousand  dollars 
more.  Look  now  to  the  imports.  New  York  receives  sev- 
enty millions.  New  Orleans  only  seven,  —  a  tenth  part.  The 
foreign  products,  in  which  the  vast  export  of  New  Orleans 
is  paid,  go  first  to  New  York,  and  the  duties  are  paid  there. 
I  ask  them  to  consider  these  facts,  and  say  whether,  under 
the  proposed  system,  New  Orleans  may  not  become  the 
depot  for  the  merchandise  required  for  the  consumption  of 
the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  and  for  exportation  to  South 
America. 

Sir,  I  did  not  understand  the  Senator  from  Connecticut 
as  intimating  that  this  measure  has  been  urged  by  myself 
with  any  exclusive  view  to  benefit  New  York.  I  am  sure 
he  knows  me  too  well  to  suppose  that  in  my  legislative 
capacity  I  am  not  actuated  by  a  higher  motive  than  that  of 
endeavoring  to  shape  the  legislation  of  the  Union  so  as  to 
give  any  undue  advantage  to  mere  local  interests.  When 
the  Senate  did  me  the  honor  to  make  me  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Commerce,  I  considered  myself  charged,  in 
common  with  my  associates,  with  the  responsibility  of  look- 
ing to  the  commercial  interests  of  the  whole  country.  I 
have  endeavored  to  meet  that  responsibility  in  a  liberal  and 
impartial  spirit.  I  might  safely  appeal  to  the  other  members 
of  the  committee  to  say  whether  I  have  busied  myself  in 
devising  schemes  of  local  benefit  for  the  State  I  have  the 
honor  to  represent,  —  whether  I  have  not  discouraged  appli- 

21 


IQ2  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


I 


cations  from  that  State  in  more  than  one  instance,  because 
I  believed  them  not  to  be  made  under  such  circumstances  as 
to  render  it  proper  to  grant  them.  It  is  my  duty,  doubt- 
less, in  conjunction  with  my  colleague,  to  see,  as  far  as  lies 
in  my  power,  that  the  interests  of  New  York  are  not  over- 
looked in  our  consultations  for  the  general  good.  That  duty 
I  shall  endeavor  to  discharge  faithfully  and  vigilantly.  But 
1  trust  I  shall  never  be  found  pressing  any  local  interest  of 
my  own  State  in  opposition  to  the  common  interests  of  the 
whole  Union.  Such  a  service  I  can  never  consent  to  perform. 
My  constituents  do  not  expect  it  of  me.  They  would  be  the 
first  to  pronounce  me  unworthy  of  the  trust  they  have  re- 
posed in  me  if  they  were  to  find  me  acting  upon  grounds  so 
narrow  and  so  subversive  of  all  just  principles  of  legislation. 
Sir,  New  York  asks  no  partial  exercise  of  legislative  power 
in  her  favor.  She  needs  none.  She  desires  only  to  stand 
on  equal  ground  with  her  sister  States.  Her  "  claim  hath 
this  extent,  no  more." 

In  bringing  forward  this  measure,  I  have  been  actuated 
by  the  single  desire  of  benefiting  the  commerce  of  the  coun- 
try at  large,  of  liberating  it  from  some  of  the  restrictions 
by  which  it  is  embarrassed,  and  of  giving  it  freer  and 
broader  scope.  I  believe  these  objects  may  be  effected  with- 
out prejudicing  any  other  interest.  I  believe  the  measure 
proposed  is  due  to  every  consideration  of  fairness.  I  have 
given  it  my  support  under  these  convictions.  I  shall  defend 
it  to  the  last.  I  trust  it  will  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Sen- 
ate. If  I  shall  be  disappointed,  I  shall  bow,  as  is  my  duty, 
to  the  judgment  of  the  majority  of  my  associates  on  this 
floor.  But  in  such  an  event,  which  I  will  not  anticipate,  it 
will  be  with  the  assurance,  not  that  the  measure  is  unworthy, 
but  that  it  would  have  succeeded  if  it  had  been  advocated  by 
the  mover  in  a  manner  at  all  commensurate  with  its  claims 
to  support. 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL   OF  THE   ARMY. 

JANUARY  4, 1847. 

Mr.  Dix  moved  that  the  Senate  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  to  appoint  a  lieutenant-general  to  command  the  military  forces 
of  the  United  States  during  the  war  with  Mexico. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill  was  taken  up  accordingly, 
as  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  President:  The  bill  under  consideration  was  in- 
troduced in  accordance  with  the  recommendation  contained 
in  the  President's  special  message  of  the  4th  instant.  The 
reasons  for  asking  the  appointment  of  a  general  to  com- 
mand all  our  military  forces  in  Mexico  were  briefly  ex- 
plained in  that  message.  Having  introduced  the  bill  as 
a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Afiairs,  I  deem  it 
due  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  subject  to  state  the  considera- 
tions by  which  I  have  been  governed  in  giving  the  measure 
my  support. 

Our  military  operations  in  Mexico  have  heretofore  been 
carried  on  in  detached  commands,  on  very  extended  lines, 
and  in  the  execution  of  enterprises  not  only  totally  distinct 
from  each  other,  but  at  geographical  distances  so  remote  as 
to  preclude  anything  like  direct  combination  between  the 
forces  respectively  employed  in  them.  These  enterprises 
have  all  been  successful.  Santa  Fe  and  Chihuahua  have 
been  overrun  and  occupied  by  the  mihtary  forces  under  Gen- 
eral Kearney ;  the  Californias  by  Colonel  Fremont  and  our 
naval  forces  in  the  Pacific ;  New  Leon  and  part  of  Tamau- 
lipas  by  General  Taylor;  and  Durango  by  General  Wool 


164 


SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 


and  General  Worth.      The  whole  of  northern  and  centn 
Mexico,  as  far  south  as  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Grande  an( 
the  twenty-sixth  parallel  of  latitude,  is  virtually  in  our  pos 
session.     The  Mexican  authority  may  by  this  occupation 
considered  extinct  in  this  extensive  district,  constituting  —  u 
we  include  Sonora  and  Sinoloa  on  the  eastern  shore  of  th^ 
Gulf  of  California,  from  which  I  believe  the  Mexican  forces 
are  withdrawn  —  about  two  thirds  of  the  entire  territory  oi 
the  Mexican  republic,  and  about  one  tenth  of  its  populationj 
The  land   forces,  by  which    these    acquisitions    have    beei 
made,  are  rapidly  concentrating  upon  the  southern  line  oi 
the  subjugated  territory.      Their  operations  are   to  be,  ii 
some  degree,  combined,  instead  of  being  carried  on  in  sej 
arate  divisions.     General  officers,  who  have  heretofore  oper- 
ated independently,  are  to  come  together  and  to  act  witl 
each  other  in  the  accomplishment  of  common  objects.     Aj 
least  four  of  these  generals  have  the  same  rank,  that  of  mj 
jor-general,  the  highest  rank  in  the  service ;  and  precedeni 
among  them  in  their  respective  arms  is,  therefore,  to  be  de'^ 
termined  by  date  of  commission.     In  subordinate  commands 
this  mode  of  settling  questions  of  precedence  is  inevitable 
and  ordinarily  leads  to  little  practical  inconvenience.     But  t< 
permit  the  right  to  the  chief  command  over  such  numeroi 
forces  as  are  now  to  be  combined,  and  in   such  extensive 
operations  as  are  to  be  carried  on,  to  be  determined  by  mer< 
priority  of  commission,  and  not  by  superiority  of  grade,  isi 
to  say  the  least,  exceedingly  undesirable,  not  only  in  defei 
ence  to   military  principles,   but  because   this  very  circumi 
stance   has   often   proved   unfriendly  to  united   and   zealoui 
action,  and  sometimes  has  led  to  the  frustration  of  plans  oi 
campaign,  and  even  to  defeat,  when  success  would  have  beei 
certain  with  proper  cooperation   on   the  part   of   the   com-i 
mander  and  his  subordinates.     I  might  appeal,  for  the  truti 
of  this  remark,  to  our  own  military  history,  as  well  as 
that  of  other  countries.     I  believe  I  may  say,  it  is  a  well-set 
tied  opinion  in  respect  to  military  command,  and  especially  ii 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL   OF   THE  AKMY.  165 

extensive  operations,  that  the  chief  commander  should,  if 
possible,  be  superior  in  grade  to  the  other  general  officers 
serving  under  him.  The  considerations  by  which  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  principle  is  supported,  are  perfectly  compat- 
ible with  the  highest  patriotism  and  honor  in  the  persons 
holding  subordinate  commands.  It  is  strictly  a  question  of 
military  organization.  We  may  concede  to  all  the  purest 
devotion  and  disinterestedness;  and  yet,  in  the  organization 
of  military  bodies,  and  in  the  preparation  of  plans  of  cam- 
paign, we  should  be  wanting  in  ordinary  prudence,  if  we 
were  not  guided  by  those  general  principles  which  are  cal- 
culated to  render  our  arrangements  proof,  as  far  as  human 
arrangements  can  be,  against  all  hazard  of  failure  in  their 
execution.  If  there  is  a  particular  form  of  organization 
better  suited  than  any  other  to  give  efficiency  to  the  move- 
ments of  military  forces,  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  adopt 
it ;  nor  should  we  be  content  with  a  less  efficient  form,  even 
though  we  have  the  fullest  confidence  in  the  patriotism  and 
zeal  of  those  who  are  to  take  part  in  the  contemplated 
enterprises.  Sir,  I  have  entire  faith  in  the  devotedness  and 
gallantry  of  the  officers  of  our  army,  and  of  the  volunteers ; 
and  no  one  shall  surpass  me  here  in  attributing  to  them  the 
praise,  and  awarding  to  them  the  justice  to  which  they  are 
entitled.  I  consider  the  proposed  measure  entirely  consist- 
ent with  the  interests  of  both  arms  of  the  service,  which 
are  deeply  concerned,  though  not  so  deeply  as  the  interests 
of  the  country,  in  giving  to  the  military  body,  of  which 
they  are  a  part,  the  most  judicious  and  efficient  organiza- 
tion. 

Looking  to  the  numerical  forces  to  be  moved  in  combi- 
nation, they  will  far  exceed  any  number  ever  commanded  in 
this  country  —  and  I  believe  I  may  say  in  any  other,  except 
from  accident  or  some  temporary  necessity  —  by  a  major- 
general,  the  highest  grade  in  our  service.  The  proper 
command  of  an  officer  of  that  rank  is  a  division.  A  major- 
general  and. a  general  of  division  are  convertible  terms.     A 


165  SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 

division  consists  of  two  brigades ;  a  brigade  consists  of  twj 
regiments  in  the  regular  service,  and  three  in  the  volui 
teers.  The  command  of  a  major-general,  therefore,  is  froi 
four  to  six  thousand  men.  The  force  to  be  employed 
Mexico,  if  our  operations  are  to  be  carried  on  with  proper 
vigor,  should  not  fall  short  of  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand 
fighting  men  in  the  field.  It  now  exceeds  twenty  thousand. 
It  is  sufficient  for  four  full  divisions.  To  permit  it  to  be 
commanded  by  a  major-general,  having  no  precedence  over 
his  associates  excepting  by  the  date  of  his  commission,  is  as 
inconsistent  with  military  principles  as  it  would  be  to  organ- 
ize a  regiment  with  three  or  four  majors,  and  without  a 
colonel,  or,  in  other  words,  without  a  head.  It  is  far  too 
large  a  force  to  be  commanded  either  by  a  major-general 
or  a  general  having  no  higher  rank  than  others  serving 
under  him.  Such  an  arrangement  is  totally  inconsistent 
with  military  principles  and  usages,  looking  to  organiza- 
tion in  its  narrowest  sense.  When  Napoleon  was  in  com- 
mand of  the  army  of  Italy,  after  his  first  successes,  the 
Executive  Directory  determined  to  associate  with  him  Gen- 
eral Kellermann,  one  of  the  best  commanders  of  that  day. 
Napoleon  remonstrated  against  it  in  a  letter  written  in  his 
usual  terse  and  vigorous  style ;  and  he  concluded  by  saying, 
that  one  bad  general  was  better  than  two  good  ones.  Sir, 
there  is  great  force  and  truth  in  the  proposition.  He  in- 
tended to  intimate  that  every  military  body  should  have  a 
distinct  head ;  and  certainly  the  observation  is  eminently 
applicable  to  cases  in  which  the  numerical  forces  are  greatly 
disproportioned  to  the  rank  of  the  officer  commanding  them. 
For  these  reasons,  if  there  were  no  others,  I  should  be  in 
favor  of  the  President's  recommendation  to  appoint  an  offi- 
cer of  higher  rank  to  command  our  armies  in  Mexico. 

Thus  far  I  have  spoken  of  the  proposed  measure  as  con- 
nected with  sound  principles  of  military  organization  and 
command.  I  desire  now  to  present  some  considerations 
of  a  different  nature.     Our  military  commanders  in  Mex- 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL   OF  THE  ARMY. 


167 


ico  are  operating  in  an  enenay's  country  of  vast  extent. 
They  are  overrunning  provinces,  reducing  cities  and  towns, 
and  providing  for  the  security  of  the  subjugated  territo- 
ries under  the  rules  of  international  law,  and  according  to 
the  usages  of  civilized  States.  These  are  high  preroga- 
tives, the  incidents  of  war,  having  their  authority  in  con- 
ventional rules  beyond  the  civil  constitution  and  municipal 
laws  of  our  own  country.  It  is  very  desirable  that  the 
^depositary  of  these  high  and  extraordinary  powers  should 
not  only  carry  with  him  the  requisite  military  talents,  but 
that  he  should  also  possess  the  experience  and  the  civil  qual- 
ifications indispensable  to  enable  him  to  meet  his  responsi- 
bilities, intelligently  and  discreetly.  'Not  only  his  own  gov- 
ernment, but  all  civilized  nations  have  an  interest  in  the 
maintenance  of  rules  designed  to  mitigate  the  asperities  of 
warfare  by  applying  to  the  conduct  of  war  the  principles 
of  humanity  and  justice.  Errors  in  the  application  of  these 
rules  may  involve  his  own  government  in  embarrassment 
and  reproach.  These  considerations,  I  am  aware,  apply 
rather  to  the  qualifications  of  the  man  than  to  the  rank  he 
may  happen  to  hold.  I  advert  to  them  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  indicating  the  importance  of  the  position  occupied 
by  the  commander  of  our  armies  in  Mexico,  and  the  pro- 
priety of  extending  to  the  President  the  broadest  field  for 
selection. 

In  the  message  of  the  President,  it  is  recommended  that 
authority  be  given  to  appoint  a  commanding  general  for 
our  military  forces  in  Mexico,  without  specifying  any  rank. 
The  committee,  in  reporting  the  bill,  propose  to  confer  on 
him  the  rank  of  lieutenant-general,  —  the  grade  in  other 
services  next  above  that  of  major-general,  which  is  the 
highest  in  ours.  The  grade  was  created  in  1798,  during 
our  dissensions  with  the  French  republic,  by  an  act  author- 
izing the  President  to  raise  a  provisional  army.  The  office 
was  conferred,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Senate,  on 
General  Washington,  and  was  accepted  by  him,  but  with 


168  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

the  express  stipulation  that  he  should  not  be  called  in 
service  until  the  exigency  for  which  the  office  was  create 
—  an  invasion  of  the  United  States  by  France  —  shoul 
actually  occur.  He  did  not  believe  it  would  occur  ;  he  wj 
not  deceived  in  this  belief;  and  he  never  entered  on  the^ 
discharge  of  his  duties,  excepting  so  far  as  to  give  advice 
with  regard  to  the  organization  of  the  army.  About  a  year 
after  this  grade  was  created,  and  a  few  months  before  he 
died,  another  act  was  passed,  authorizing  the  appointment 
of  a  commander  of  the  army,  with  the  title  of  "general 
of  the  armies  of  the  United  States,"  and  thereupon  abol- 
ishing the  office  of  lieutenant-general.  I  have  not  been 
able  to  find  that  the  appointment  was  ever  made ;  and  b 
a  return  from  the  War  Department,  in  1800,  General  Wash- 
ington was  reported  as  lieutenant-general,  dead.  Accord- 
ing to  the  analogies  of  other  services,  the  rank  of  general 
is  higher  than  that  of  lieutenant-general.  I  have  not 
thought  it  material  to  inquire  into  the  object  of  the  second 
act;  but  it  may  have  been  designed  to  confer  on  him  a 
rank  as  nearly  approaching  that  which  he  bore  in  the  rev- 
olutionary war  (that  of  general  and  commander-in-chief) 
as  was  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  declares  the  President  to  be  commander-in-chief  of 
the  armies  of  the  United  States. 

In  other  services,  the  rank  of  lieutenant-general  is,  I 
believe,  a  part,  and  an  essential  part,  of  the  military  organ- 
ization. In  France,  it  was  formerly  conferred  on  the  chiefs 
of  provinces,  and  the  individuals  holding  it  were  invested 
with  civil  as  well  as  military  functions.  In  modern  times, 
I  believe,  it  has  become  purely  a  military  title,  and  it  con- 
fers a  rank  intermediate  between  that  of  major-general, 
which  is  below,  and  general,  which  is  above  it.  As  the 
grade  next  to  that  of  major-general,  it  seems  the  proper 
title,  if  a  higher  grade  is  to  be  created.  On  the  other  hand, 
though  the  office  of  commander  of  the  military  forces  in 
Mexico  will  be  purely  military,  nevertheless,  in  providing 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL  OF  THE  ARMY.  IQQ 

for  exigencies  which  may  arise  in  the  occupation  of  an  ene- 
my's territory,  —  and,  let  me  add,  with  as  Httle  disturbance 
as  possible  to  the  local  authorities  and  the  ordinary  admin- 
istration of  justice,  —  his  station  becomes  one  of  the  high- 
est delicacy  and  importance.  If  a  new  grade  is  to  be  cre- 
ated, I  repeat,  the  title  of  lieutenant-general  will  be  admitted 
to  be  proper  in  a  strictly  military  sense,  and  it  is  descriptive 
of  the  relation  in  which  the  commander  of  the  armies  in 
Mexico  will  stand  to  the  President  as  commander-in-chief 
of  the  armies  of  the  United  States  under  the  Constitution. 
He  cannot  be  in  Mexico  in  person,  and  he  must,  therefore, 
command  there  by  his  lieutenant  or  deputy,  by  whatever 
name  the  latter  may  be  called. 

The  proposed  creation  of  a  new  grade  in  the  army, 
higher  than  any  now  known  to  the  service,  does  not  con- 
template the  creation  or  delegation  of  any  new  authority 
to  the  officer  who  may  be  appointed  to  it.  He  will  pos- 
sess no  other  powers  than  those  now  possessed  by  our 
military  commanders.  The  act  creating  the  office  limits 
its  duration  to  the  war  with  Mexico.  It  is  proposed  to 
be  created  for  the  extraordinary  emergency  in  which  the 
country  is  placed,  and  will  cease  with  it. 

I  desire  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  the  measure 
is  proposed  with  a  view  to  the  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war ;  and  in  this  view  only  I  support  it.  If  we  were 
to  have  a  war  of  posts,  or  a  long  and  moderate  war,  the 
office  would  be  unnecessary,  and  I  should  not  give  it  my 
support.  On  this  point  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  more. 
I  concur  fully  in  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the  Senator 
from  Kentucky^  at  a  late  session  of  the  Senate,  with  re- 
gard to  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  I  see  no 
alternative  but  to  advance  with  a  competent  force,  and 
continue  our  operations  until  Mexico  shall  consent  to  make 
peace.  Least  of  all  would  I  approve  the  policy  which  has 
been  referred  to  on  this  floor,  of  maintaining  our  present 

1  Mr.  Crittenden. 
22 


1^0  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

line  of  possession,  and  waiting  for  peace  to  come  to  us 
I  see  in  such  a  policy  no  beneficial  results.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  see  in  it  nothing  but  evil  and  mischief.  I  believe 
it  would  be  a  line  of  war,  assassination,  and  rapine,  which 
neither  party  would  have  the  ability  to  put  down.  It  is 
only  a  restoration  of  peace,  resting  upon  the  solemn  sanc- 
tions of  a  treaty,  that  can  engage  either  party  to  treat 
the  perpetrators  of  outrage  with  the  severity  necessary  to 
suppress  it.  Draw  a  line  acros§  the  Mexican  territory 
and  place  your  soldiery  there  to  guard  it,  and  you  will  be 
exposed  to  the  danger,  so  well  described  by  the  Senator 
from  Kentucky,  of  having  your  own  divided  forces  attacked 
by  the  combined  forces  of  the  enemy  at  any  point  which 
he  may  select.  Besides,  sir,  take  such  a  line,  and  let  our 
present  hostile  relations  to  Mexico  continue,  and  you  give 
to  individual  acts  of  depredation,  in  some  degree,  the  sanc- 
tion of  law.  You  convert  a  war  of  communities  into  a 
war  of  individuals,  without  responsibility,  and  without  re- 
straint, while  the  hostile  feeling  between  the  two  countries 
will  constantly  grow  more  embittered  by  the  repetition  of 
acts  of  violence.  Peace  alone,  uniting  the  sovereign  power 
of  both  countries  in  the  maintenance  of  order,  can  termi- 
nate a  state  of  things  disastrous  to  both,  and  at  war  with 
all  the  interests  of  humanity. 

I  have  said  that  I  see  no  hope  but  in  a  vigorous  prose- 
cution of  the  war.  I  believe  that  with  proper  energy  it 
may  be  brought  to  a  close.  The  opposition  which  has  been 
made  to  us  in  Mexico  has,  I  believe,  come  wholly  from 
the  army.  There  has  been  no  uprising  of  the  people,  as 
there  would  be  with  us  if  our  soil  were  to  be  invaded  by 
a  foreign  power.  There  are  two  reasons  why  it  is  so. 
Our  military  operations  have  been  carried  on  chiefly  in  a 
sparsely  populated  country,  and  the  great  body  of  the 
Mexicans  are  nearly  disarmed.  I  have  a  paper  before  me, 
published  in  the  city  of  Mexico,  containing  an  article  from 
Zacatecas,   showing  a   most  extraordinary  fact.     If  Sena- 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL   OF  THE  ARMY.  I'J'l 

tors  will  look  at  their  maps,  they  will  find  the  department 
of  Zacatecas,  southwest  of  New  Leon,  of  which  Monterey 
is  the  chief  town,  southeast  of  Durango,  and  northwest  of 
San  Luis  Potosi,  —  lying)  in  a  word,  in  the  very  centre 
of  the  territory  of  Mexico.  And  yet  the  frontiers  of  the 
department  and  those  of  Durango  are  subject  to  the  con- 
stant incursions  of  bands  of  savages,  from  twenty,  thirty, 
fifty,  to  two  hundred  in  number.  Let  me  read  an  extract 
from  this  article :  — 

"  Zacatecas,  October  25, 1846. 
"  In  our  last  number  we  announced  that,  besides  the  one  hundred 
men  who  had  gone  out  in  the  direction  of  the  northern  frontier  of  the 
State,  to  free  the  inhabitants  from  the  depredation  of  the  savages,  his 
Excellency  the  commanding  general  would  go  out  in  person  on  the  first 
of  the  next  month,  with  the  rest  of  the  force  of  the  sixth  regiment  of 
permanent  cavalry.  But  having  received  the  day  before  yesterday 
news,  which  was  communicated  by  extraordinary  express  from  the 
political  chiefs  of  Sombrerete  and  Nieves,  that  a  party  of  savages, 
whose  number  they  estimated  at  two  hundred,  had  shown  themselves 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Mateo  Gomez,  Santa  Catarina,  and  other  vil- 
lages in  that  quarter,  his  Excellency  the  commanding  general  hastened 
his  departure,  and  yesterday  he  marched  with  about  two  hundred  men 
of  the  sixth  regiment,  a  detachment  of  the  active  battalion,  a  company 
of  the  national  guard,  and  a  detachment  of  artillery  of  the  same  guard, 
with  one  piece  of  cannon.  Besides,  his  Excellency  has  sent  orders  to 
the  political  chiefs  of  Nieves,  Sombrerete,  Fresnillo,  and  others  in  that 
quarter,  to  assemble  the  militia,  as  far  as  the  excessive  scarcity  of  arms 
would  permit,  and  aid  the  operations  of  the  commandant  general.  We 
believe,  then,  if  the  savages  succeed  in  attacking  the  people  of  the 
frontier,  they  will  be  severely  punished." 

The  same  paper  contains  an  account  of  a  fight  with  the  In- 
dians, in  Durango,  on  the  18th  of  October,  in  which  eleven 
Mexicans  were  killed  and  twenty-four  wounded.  The  scene 
of  these  Indian  depredations  is  two  hundred  miles  in  ad- 
vance of  our  army  at  Monterey,  nearly  midway  between 
Saltillo,  in  Durango,  and  Santa  Ana's  head-quarters,  at  San 
Luis  Potosi.  It  is  an  extraordinary  fact,  as  indicating  the 
defenceless  condition  of  the  great  body  of  the  Mexicans, 
and  from  "the  excessive  scarcity  of  arms,"  the  militia  could 


IJ2  SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 

only  be  partially  employed.  The  people,  it  would  seem, 
are  dependent  for  their  protection  on  the  army;  and  when 
this  is  withdrawn,  they  are  again  exposed  to  outrage  and 
depredation  from  the  most  insignificant  bands  of  savages. 
I  will  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  two  articles 
of  great  interest  and  importance,  as  connected  with  the  his- 
tory of  the  contest  in  which  we  are  engaged  with  Mexico, 
and  as  casting  some  light  upon  the  course  which  it  may  be 
incumbent  on  us  to  pursue.  I  have  two  Mexican  papers,  M 
published  in  the  city  of  Mexico  about  the  middle  of  Novem- 
ber,  and  containing  what  may  be  regarded  as  the  manifes- 
toes of  the  two  great  parties  in  that  country,  put  forth  in 
anticipation  of  the  meeting  of  the  extraordinary  Congress 
now  in  session.  The  first  is  the  "  Monitor  Republicano," 
(the  Republican  Monitor,)  of  the  14th  of  November,  1846, 
containing,  under  its  editorial  head,  an  article  which  I  will 
read  from  the  Spanish ;  and  in  translating  it,  as  I  proceed, 
I  shall  endeavor  to  follow  it  with  literal  accuracy,  for  any 
deviation  from  the  original  would  impair  its  strength :  — 

"Most  weighty  are  the  questions  of  which  the  solution  belongs 
to  the  Congress  soon  to  be  convened,  and  their  gravity  incalculable. 
One  of  the  most  important  is  the  termination  or  continuation  of  the 
actual  war  with  the  Unfted  States,  a  subject  on  which  depends  nothing 
less  than  our  existence  as  an  independent  nation. 

"  The  reasons  which  exist  for  terminating  the  war  are  most  power- 
ful ;  and  not  less  weighty  are  those  which  oblige  us  to  continue  it.  Our 
situation  is  truly  critical,  and  immense  the  responsibility  of  those  who 
are  to  decide  our  fate. 

"  Our  country,  weakened  by  twenty-five  years  of  intestine  wars,  can- 
not present  the  energetic  and  invincible  resistance  which  are  the  fruit 
of  peace,  of  union,  and  of  order  in  the  public  administration.  Events 
common  to  all  youthful  nations,  and  which  ours  has  been  unable  to 
avoid,  have  brought  us  to  the  condition  which  we  to-day  deplore,  but 
from  which,  unhappily,  it  is  not  in  our  power  immediately  to  escape. 
The  nations  of  Europe,  attentive  to  their  own  interests,  all  incline  to 
favor  our  enemies,  because  they  consider  them  stronger,  and  because 
from  their  triumph  they  anticipate  greater  advantages  for  their  indus- 
try and  commerce.  Misfortunes,  the  offspring  of  the  improvidence  and 
weakness  of  a  few  men,  are  attributed  to  the  whole  nation,  which 


LIEnTENANT-GENEEAL   OF  THE  ARMT. 


17s 


in  this  manner  has  incurred  reproaches  it  was  far  from  meriting. 
Finally,  everything  conspires  against  us,  and  on  all  sides  the  most 
gloomy  perspective  presents  itself.  These,  and  many  other  reasons 
which  will  readily  occur  to  him  who  reflects  a  moment,  persuade  us  of 
the  imperious  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  so  great  a  calamity  as 
that  which  afflicts  us. 

"  But  in  what  manner  can  we  attain  it  ?  "Wliat  treaties  can  we 
make,  which  wnll  not  cover  us  with  opprobrium  ?  These  wicked  men 
have  usurped  our  territory,  demolished  our  cities,  destroyed  our  sea- 
ports, and  rendered  our  shipping  useless :  they  have  committed  every 
species  of  violence  upon  our  citizens,  and  offered  every  description  of 
outrage  to  our  country.  Can  we,  without  covering  ourselves  with 
ignominy,  humble  ourselves,  and  yield  what  they  desire,  and  what  will 
be  to  us,  beyond  measure,  unfavorable?  Mexico  has  suffered  grave 
injuries  from  the  civil  war  which  has  burned  without  intermission  in 
her  bosom ;  but  she  will  not  admit  that  her  sons  have  lost  the  noble 
ardor  with  which  they  have  always  fought  to  defend  their  natal  soil. 
All  Mexicans,  without  any  exception,  are  resolved  to  sacrifice  all  their 
interests,  and  their  existence,  before  they  will  consent  to  be  the  slaves 
of  avaricious  adventurers  ;  and  this  noble  decision  is  the  surest  pledge 
of  triumph.  The  smallest,  the  most  insignificant  J)eople  on  earth,  are 
invincible  when  they  combat  for  their  independence.  And  Mexico,  — 
will  she  not  maintain  her  dignity?  Will  she  not  know  how  to  avail 
herself  of  any  of  the  great  elements  of  defence  with  which  nature  has 
endowed  her? 

"  These  are  powerful  motives  why  we  should  pursue,  at  every  peril, 
a  most  just  contest,  —  a  contest  to  which  we  are  stimulated  by  the 
greatest  incentives  that  can  be  imagined. 

"•What,  then,  is  the  issue  of  this  most  important  matter?  We  con- 
fess, in  good  faith,  we  are  unable  to  foresee ;  and  that  only  the  most 
mature  deliberation  of  wise  and  experienced  men  is  capable  of  bringing 
to  a  good  termination  a  question  of  life  or  death  for  Mexico. 

"  Great,  then,  should  be  the  circumspection  with  which  the  future 
Congress  should  proceed,  —  a  Congress  which  we  shall  accuse  of  our 
ruin,  or  to  which  w^e  shall  be  the  debtors  for  our  salvation.  Every 
citizen  of  those  who  compose  it,  when  he  finds  himself  in  the  Hall 
of  the  Representatives  of  the  people,  should  forget  every  interest, 
every  affection,  and  keep  only  in  view  his  country,  whose  fate  he  is 
to  decide  irremediably." 

This,  sir,  is  the  declaration  of  the  republican  party  of 
Mexico ;  and  I  cannot,  by  any  words  of  mine,  add  to  its 
force  or  eloquence.      This   party  I  suppose   to   be  far  the 


174 


SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 


^ 


most  numerous  and  the  most  patriotic,  but  kept  down  by 
the  army,  the  clergy,  and  the  monarchists.  Though  their 
manifesto  breathes  a  noble  spirit  of  patriotism,  and  denounces 
us  as  invaders  of  the  Mexican  soil,  I  think  it  will  not  be 
difficult  for  an  attentive  reader  to  perceive  that  they  are 
strongly  disposed  to  peace,  and  that  they  see  nothing  but 
evil  to  the  republic  from  the  military  rule  of  Santa  Ana. 
It  is  the  party  with  which  our  negotiations  were  commenced 
for  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  Texas  question.  We  have, 
I  fear,  lost  much  of  its  confidence  since  the  war  commenced. 
We  are  considered  as  determined  to  dismember  the  republic. 
The  Mexican  papers  are  full  of  a  plan  which  they  attribute 
to  us,  of  dividing  their  territory  at  the  2Sd  degree  of  lati- 
tude, the  parallel  of  Tampico  and  San  Luis  Potosi ;  and 
while  they  suppose  this  to  be  our  determination,  it  is  nat- 
ural that  they  should  speak  of  us  with  asperity.  But  let 
it  be  once  understood  that  we  are  disposed  to  settle  our 
differences  on  just  and  liberal  terms,  and  I  believe  there 
will  be  no  obstacle  with  them  to  a  pacification.  They 
are  now  powerless  ;  but  it  may  be  that,  in  the  progress 
of  the  war,  their  condition  may  be  reversed,  and  that,  by 
a  wise  policy  on  our  part,  political  results  of  the  highest 
benefit  to  Mexico  may  be  secured,  and  her  republican  in- 
stitutions may  be  established  on  a  more  solid  and  durable 
foundation. 

I  will  now  read  to  the  Senate  a  paper  of  a  different 
character,  —  a  paper  which  may  be  fairly  considered  as 
the  manifesto  of  Santa  Ana  himself.  I  find  it  in  the 
"  Diario  del  Gobierno  de  la  Republica  Mexicana "  (the 
Journal  of  the  Government  of  the  Mexican  Republic)  of 
Sunday,  the  22d  November,  1846;  but  the  article  is  copied 
from  a  paper  printed  at  San  Luis  Potosi,  and  entitled  "La 
opinion  del  ejercito,"  (the  opinion  of  the  army.)  and  doubt- 
less conducted  under  his  supervision.  Indeed,  it  contains 
a  reference  to  his  opinions,  which  may  be  regarded  not 
only  as  authentic,  but  semi-official ;  — 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL   OF  THE  ARMY.  l*^^ 

"  San  Luis  Potosi,  Novtmber  13. 

"  The  War  with  the  United  States.  —  Public  opinion  expressed 
through  the  press  has  been  continually  arraigning  our  rulers,  of  all 
epochs,  for  the  apathy  and  indifference  with  which  they  have  viewed 
the  Texas  question  since  the  unfortunate  event  of  San  Jacinto.  From 
that  time  the  Mexican  people  knew  what  would  be  the  consequences 
of  this  criminal  indifference,  and  constantly  and  energetically  begged 
for  the  restoration  of  the  constitution  of  1824,  as  the  only  means  of 
recovering,  with  less  difficulty  and  by  force,  possession  of  that  vast 
and  rich  territory  usurped  by  a  small  handful  of  adventurers. 

"Unfortunately,  the  preceding  administration,  occupied  solely  with 
keeping  themselves  in  power,  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  voice  of  the 
people,  refusing  them  even  the  cooperation  of  our  valiant  army  in  an 
enterprise  which,  singly,  they  could  not  have  accomplished.  They 
feared  that  the  citizens,  on  receiving  arms  to  revenge  the  outrages 
committed  upon  the  nation,  would  turn  them  against  their  rulers, 
and  hurl  them  from  the  posts  which  they  held  by  means  of  revolu- 
tions. In  this  manner  they  succeeded  in  weakening  the  strength  of 
the  people,  and  putting  to  sleep  their  enthusiasm,  so  as  to  favor  the 
rapacity  of  the  Americans,  who  already  meditated  the  annexation  of 
Texas  to  their  States. 

"This  act  of  pei-fidy  was  verified  by  a  decree  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  reclamations  from  our  gov- 
ernment, and  the  answers  to  them,  were  in  great  part  unknown  to 
the  people,  from  whom  they  were  carefully  concealed,  in  order  that 
public  opinion  might  not  interfere  with  measures  so  little  favorable 
to  the  interests  of  the  community.  Thus  have  negotiations  of  the 
highest  importance  to  Mexico  constantly  become  more  complicated, 
until  we  now  see  ourselves  invaded,  and  a  large  portion  of  our 
country  occupied,  not  merely  by  Texan  adventurers,  but  by  the  army 
of  the  United  States,  ordered  hither  without  reason,  and  with  perfidi- 
ous views  on  the  part  of  that  government  which  aspires  to  overthrow 
the  independence  which  we  acquired  at  the  cost  of  so  much  blood. 

"  Of  all  these  evils,  and  of  many  more  sacrifices  which  have  been 
made,  and  are  still  making,  by  the  people  to  recover  the  territory  of 
Texas,  and  that  newly  occupied,  preceding  administrations  are  the 
cause,  and  more  particularly  that  of  the  6th  of  December,  1844,  which, 
forgetting  its  pledges  to  the  nation,  confided  its  arms  to  a  disloyal 
general,  who  planned  the  ruin  of  our  institutions  before  marching  to 
the  frontier  to  punish,  as  he  was  ordered,  our  invaders.  To  this 
administration,  we  repeat,  the  country  owes  the  state  in  which  it 
now  finds  itself  with  our  perfidious  neighbor ;  and  it  is  responsible 
for  the  manner  in  which  our  diplomatic  relations  with  that  power 
now  remain. 


176 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


"  The  negotiations  which  the  minister,  Cuevas,  commenced  with  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  to  terminate  the  Texas  question  in 
an  amicable  manner,  gave  reason  to  the  cabinet  of  that  republic  to 
believe  that  Mexico  was  feeble,  and  that  they  could  remain  with 
impunity  in  the  possession  of  our  territories  as  soon  as  a  part  of 
their  army  should  present  itself  on  this  side  of  the  line  that  divides 
the  two  territories.  All  that  has  happened,  the  periodical  press,  as  the 
most  sure  organ  of  public  opinion,  foretold ;  and  it  reproved  severely 
the  conduct  observed  by  the  cabinet  of  that  period  for  admitting  an 
envoy  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  who  came  empowered 
to  arrange  our  difference  with  the  Anglo-Saxon  peacefully.  This  same 
opinion  was  manifested  by  the  army  of  operations,  which,  under  the 
orders  of  General  Paredes,  was  iii  this  capital ;  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  nation  repudiates  all  accommodation  with  the  American 
government. 

"  The  best  proof  which  can  be  given  of  this  fact  is,  that  now  when  we 
enjoy  liberty,  when  the  nation  sees  itself  governed  by  the  constitution 
of  1824,  and  when  it  has  a  government  of  its  own,  since  it  is  emi- 
nently popular,  citizens  of  all  classes  present  themselves  full  of  en- 
thusiasm to  offer  their  services  to  make  war  upon  the  unjust  invader. 
In  all  parts  they  are  contending  and  disputing  the  preference  to  march, 
and  anxiously  await  the  day  of  battle  to  avenge  the  blood  of  their 
brethren,  shed  on  the  fields  of  Palo  Alto,  Resaca,  and  Monterey. 

«  NO  ACCOMMODATION,  cry  the  people :  No  measures  of  pad- 
Jication  while  these  rapacious  invaders  remain  in  our  territory.  These 
are  the  sentiments  of  our  army  and  of  the  people^  of  our  ILLUS- 
TRIOUS CHIEF,  —  and  these  will  be  also  the  feelings  of  the  sover- 
eign extraordinary  Congress,  provided  its  deliberations  are  governed 
by  obedience  to  the  popular  will" 

As  I  have  already  said,  this  article  is  from  a  paper  pub- 
lished at  San  Luis  Potosi,  and  it  may  be  regarded  as  the 
organ  of  Santa  Ana,  and  as  speaking  his  sentiments.  The 
article  was  put  forth  on  the  18th  of  November,  about  three 
weeks  before  the  Congress  met.  It  seems,  on  its  face, 
designed  to  forestall  the  deliberations  of  Congress.  It 
leaves  no  field  for  discussion.  "  No  accommodation,"  is  the 
command  of  Santa  Ana,  at  the  head  of  fifteen  or  twenty 
thousand  men.  What  are  we  to  infer  ?  That,  as  war  will 
continue  him  in  command  of  the  army,  he  is  unwilling  to 
terminate  it  ]  It  would  certainly  seem  so ;  and  yet  this 
bold  language  may  be  a  mere  stroke  of  diplomacy.     While 


LlEUTENA^rr-GENERAL  OF  THE  ARMY.  I77 

assuming  an  attitude  of  uncompromising  hostility  to  us,  and 
before  his  countrymen,  it  may  be  that  he  is  secretly  in  favor 
of  peace.  But  there  is  enough,  it  appears  to  me,  in  both 
manifestoes  to  counsel  us  to  continue  our  preparations,  and 
to  pursue  the  war  with  vigor,  standing  ready  to  terminate 
the  contest  on  just  and  liberal  terms,  whenever  Mexico  shall 
listen  to  our  overtures. 

I  have  but  one  word  more  to  say  in  support  of  the  bill. 
The  President  has  asked  the  appointment  of  a  commander 
of  the  armies  in  Mexico,  with  an  increased  rank.  He  be- 
lieves it  to  be  essential  to  the  proper  organization  and  move- 
ment of  the  army.*  He  believes  the  success  of  our  military 
operations  may  depend  on  it.  Sir,  when  the  public  honor 
and  reputation  are  at  stake,  I  am  willing  to  extend  to  the 
administration,  on  whom  rests  the  whole  responsibility  of 
bringing  the  war  to  an  honorable  termination,  any  reasonable 
aid  it  requires.  If  we  deny  him  the  means  he  asks,  and 
there  shall  be  any  failure  in  the  enterprises  set  on  foot, 
the  responsibility  will  rest,  not  on  him,  but  on  us.  While 
I  am  never  in  favor  of  enlarging  unduly  the  sphere  of  exec- 
utive patronage  or  power,  I  am  in  favor  of  extending  to 
the  President,  within  the  sphere  of  his  existing  powers,  the 
fullest  command  of  means.  It  is  a  necessary  incident  to 
the  conduct  of  war  to  invest  him,  in  this  respect,  with  a 
large  discretion.  Be  it  for  good  or  for  evil,  we  must  give 
him  our  confidence.  It  is  always  possible  an  Executive 
may  not  respond  to  it  as  we  think  he  ought.  But  it  is 
quite  clear  that  he  cannot  without  it  hope  for  a  successful 
execution  of  his  plans.  With  these  impressions,  I  shall 
vote  for  the  men  and  means  which  may  be  asked  to  carry 
on  the  war  with  vigor.  I  shall  vote  for  such  an  organiza- 
tion of  the  army  as  is  deemed  necessary  to  give  it  the  great- 
est efficiency,  so  long  as  I  see  no  salutary  principle  violated. 
The  honorable  Senator  from  Kentucky  ^  expressed  the  same 
determination  in  respect  to  men  and  means  at  a  late  meeting 

1  Mr.  Crittenden. 
23 


178 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 


of  the  Senate.  Sir,  no  one  appreciates  the  patriotism  of 
that  honorable  Senator  better  than  myself;  and  I  sincerely 
wish  the  confidence  in  the  Executive,  which  this  determina- 
tion implies,  could,  consistently  with  his  views  of  duty,  be 
carried  a  little  farther,  —  that,  while  giving*  to  the  govern- 
ment all  the  men  and  money  asked  for,  he  could  also  vote 
for  such  an  organization  of  the  army  as  is  deemed  neces- 
sary to  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war ;  for  means  and 
men  avail  little  without  the  energy  moral  and  physical  of 
an  efficient  organization.  For  myself,  I  perceive  nothing 
objectionable  in  the  measure  proposed.  On  the  contrary,  I 
can  readily  conceive  it  to  be  essential  to  the  successful  prose- 
cution of  our  military  operations  in  Mexico.  I  believe  it 
to  be  necessary  to  a  proper  organization  of  the  army ;  and 
I  sustain  it  with  cheerfulness,  as  a  measure  which  is  deemed 
necessary  by  the  administration  to  sustain  the  honor  of  the 
country  and  to  insure  the  success  of  its  arms. 


THE  THREE   MILLION  BILL. 

MARCH  1, 1847. 

On  the  8th  of  August,  1846,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
sent  a  message  to  Congress,  asking  an  appropriation  of  two  millions  of 
dollars  to  provide  for  any  expenditure  which  might  be  necessary  for 
the  purpose  of  settling  our  difficulties  with  the  Republic  of  Mexico, 
with  which  we  were  at  war.  It  was  well  understood  that  the  object 
was  to  secure  a  cession  of  territory  from  that  republic.  A  bill  making 
the  appropriation  was  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
the  same  day.  Mr.  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  offered  an  amendment, 
which  was  adopted,  asserting  as  an  express  and  fundamental  condition 
of  the  acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexico  by  virtue  of  any  treaty  to 
be  negotiated  with  that  republic,  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  should  exist  in  any  part  of  said  territory  except  for  crime. 
This  amendment  was  known  as  the  Wilmot  proviso.  The  bill  passed 
the  House  on  the  day  it  was  introduced,  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate 
late  at  night.  The  following  day  was  Sunday.  On  Monday  morning, 
the  day  Congress  adjourned,  the  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate,  but 
no  vote  was  taken,  Mr.  Davis  of  Massachusetts  having  spoken  against 
it  until  the  hour  of  adjournment. 

In  1847,  a  similar  bill  was  introduced  into  Congress,  making  an  ap- 
propriation of  three,  instead  of  two  millions.  On  this  bill  Mr.  Dix 
delivered  the  speech  which  follows. 

It  may  be  proper  to  state,  with  a  view  to  a  more  correct  understand- 
ing of  the  issue  presented  by  the  Wilmot  proviso,  that  its  advocates 
sustained  it  on  the  distinct  ground  that,  as  slavery  had  been  abolished 
throughout  the  Mexican  republic,  the  acquisition  of  territory  without 
prohibiting  slavery  would,  on  the  theory  asserted  by  the  Southern 
States,  lead  to  its  restoration  where  it  had  ceased  to  exist,  and  make 
the  United  States  responsible  for  its  extension  to  districts  in  which 
universal  freedom  had  been  established  by  the  fundamental  law. 

Mr.  President:  I  intended  to  address  the  Senate  on 
the  general   subject  of  the   war;   but  being  always  more 


180  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

ready  to  listen  than  to  speak,  I  have  given  way  to  others 
vrho  were  desirous  of  presenting-  their  views.  And  I  have 
doiie  so  with  pleasure,  because  I  knew  that  they  were 
much  more  capable  than  myself  of  enlightening  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Senate  on  the  questions  before  it.  I  have 
thought  the  occasion  an  appropriate  one  for  recurring  to 
the  principles  on  which  our  government  was  founded ;  of 
reviewing  its  progress  ;  of  entering  into  a  critical  survey  of 
our  position  as  a  nation,  for  the  purpose  of  estimating  intel- 
ligently our  responsibilities  to  ourselves  and  others ;  of  see- 
ing wherein  our  strength  consists ;  and  of  determining  by 
what  course  of  policy  the  permanent  interests  of  the  country 
are  most  likely  to  be  promoted.  If  I  do  not  mistake  pre- 
vailing indications,  an  opportunity  may  be  afforded  hereafter 
for  such  a  review,  and  one  fully  as  appropriate  as  the  pres- 
ent. I  pass  by  all  these  grave  considerations.  I  rise  for 
the  purpose  of  saying  a  few  words  in  respect  to  the  position 
taken  by  the  non-slaveholding  States  concerning  the  acqui- 
sition of  territory,  and  the  admission  of  future  States  into 
the  Union,  —  a  position  taken  by  resolutions  passed  by  the 
legislatures  of  nine  of  these  States.  This  question  is  pre- 
sented by  the  bill  passed  by  the  House,  and  now  awaiting 
the  action  of  the  Senate.  It  has  been  largely  discussed  on 
both  sides.  New  York  is  one  of  the  States  by  which  reso- 
lutions relating  to  the  question  have  been  adopted.  Her 
course,  as  well  as  that  of  other  States,  has  been  the  subject 
of  censure  here.  As  one  of  her  representatives  on  this 
floor,  I  wish  to  say  something  in  her  vindication,  and  in 
reference  to  the  vote  I  may  be  called  on  to  give,  probably 
at  too  late  an  hour  for  discussion.  And,  in  the  first  place, 
I  desire  to  state  what  I  understand  to  be  the  rights  of  the 
original  parties  to  the  Constitution,  in  respect  to  the  subject 
of  slavery  within  their  own  limits. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognized  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  the  thirteen  original  States,  which 
were  parties  to  that  compact.     The  recognition  was  not  in 


THE  THREE  MILLION  BILL.  181 

direct  terms,  but  by  force  of  certain  stipulations  designed  to 
provide  for  exigencies  which  were  the  consequences  of  its 
existence.  These  stipulations  are  binding  upon  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Union,  —  as  well  those  which  were  so  originally, 
as  those  which  have  since  been  admitted  into  it.  Whatever 
opinions  may  be  entertained  with  regard  to  the  political  or 
social  influences  of  slavery,  the  obligation  of  those  who  live 
under  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  to  carry  out  in  good 
faith  all  its  stipulations  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  doubt  or 
controversy.  It  is  a  solemn  obligation,  therefore,  to  leave 
the  States  in  which  slavery  exists,  unmolested  and  free  to 
deal  with  it  according  to  their  own  interests  and  conceptions 
of  duty.  * 

Such  I  understand  to  be  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the 
States  which  were  the  original  parties  to  the  federal  com- 
pact ;  and  they  belong  equally  to  those  who  have  since  be- 
come parties  to  it. 

I  pass  to  the  consideration  of  admitting  new  States  into 
the  Union,  with  slavery.  Whether  an  organized  State, 
formed  from  territory  not  belonging  to  the  United  States, 
or,  in  other  words,  whether  a  foreign  State,  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  at  all,  is  a  problem  which  may  be  determined 
(waiving  all  questions  of  constitutional  power)  upon  general 
considerations  of  expediency,  without  regard  to  the  particular 
conditions  on  which  it  is  proposed  to  be  received.  The  ad- 
mission of  Texas  is  the  only  case  of  this  kind  which  has 
occurred  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  Slavery 
existed  In  that  republic  at  the  time  of  the  admission,  and  we 
did  not  require  that  it  should  be  abolished.  It  is  true,  the 
compromise  line  adopted  on  the  adjustment  of  the  Missouri 
question  was  fixed  as  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  admission. 
Slavery  was  prohibited  north  of  86"  80'  north  latitude.  But 
it  is  equally  true,  I  believe,  that  there  was  no  settlement  then, 
if  there  is  now,  in  that  part  of  Texas  which  lies  north  of  the 
parallel  of  latitude  referred  to.  There  was  no  slavery  to  be 
abolished.     It  was  an  uninhabited  wilderness.     I  believe  it 


182  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

to  be  true,  also,  that  Texas,  notwithstanding  the  fundamental 
condition  on  which  she  was  admitted  into  the  Union,  —  that 
slavery  should  not  exist  above  86"  SC/,  —  has  extended  to 
her  whole  territory,  without  reservation,  the  provisions  of 
her  constitution  in  respect  to  slavery ;  one  of  which  is,  that 
"  the  Legislature  shall  have  no  power  to  pass  laws  for  the 
emancipation  of  slaves,  without  the  consent  of  their  owners ; 
nor  without  paying  their  owners,  previous  to  such  emancipa- 
tion, a  full  equivalent,  in  money,  for  the  slaves  so  emanci- 
pated." 

The  reasonings  which  prevailed  with  some  of  those  who 
voted  for  the  admission  of  Texas,  without  further  restriction, 
are  all  founded  on  the  single  fact  that  slavery  existed  in 
that  republic.  We  took  it  as  we  found  it.  The  same  rea- 
sonings, applied  to  the  acquisition  of  foreign  territory  in 
which  slavery  does  not  exist,  demand  that  it  shall  be  received 
as  we  find  it,  and  that  we  shall  so  maintain  it  as  long  as  it 
continues  to  be  territory.  If  it  shall  at  any  time  thereafter 
be  organized  into  a  State,  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  it  is 
entitled  to  come  in  with  all  the  political  rights  of  the  original 
States,  and,  therefore,  free  to  determine  for  itself  what  its 
forms  of  organization,  political  or  social,  shall  be,  provided 
they  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  obligations  of  the  funda- 
mental compact  between  the  States,  or  with  any  stipulation 
or  compromise  in  respect  to  the  territory  from  which  it  is 
formed.  If  slavery  exists  when  a  State  comes  into  the 
Union,  it  may  be  subsequently  abolished  in  such  form  as 
the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  State  prescribe  for  expressing 
the  sovereign  will  or  assent.  On  the  other  hand,  if  slavery 
does  not  exist  when  a  State  comes  into  the  Union,  it  may  be 
subsequently  established  by  the  act  of  the  State,  without 
violating  any  provision  of  the  federal  Constitution.  This 
freedom  of  action  is  inseparable  from  the  sovereignty  of  the 
State,  and  there  is  no  authority  to  controf  it  by  federal 
laws. 

I  have  thus  stated  what  I  understand  to  be  the  conceded 


THE  THREE   JVHLLION  BILL.  183 

rights  of  the  States  in  respect  to  this  subject.  I  admit,  to 
the  fullest  extent,  the  exclusive  control  of  each  State  over 
the  subject,  within  its  own  jurisdiction.  I  admit  the  right 
of  the  States  to  be  exempt  from  every  species  of  intermed- 
dling or  interference  within  their  own  limits.  I  have  always 
acted  in  conformity  with  this  admission.  I  introduced  reso- 
lutions in  the  first  meeting  ever  held  at  the  North  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  movements  of  the  Abolitionists.  The  meeting 
was  held  in  Albany  in  1835,  and  its  proceedings  not  only 
met  with  the  approbation  of  a  large  portion  of  the  people  of 
the  non-slaveholding  States  of  all  parties,  but  I  believe  they 
met  also  with  the  approbation  of  the  whole  South.  They 
were  founded  upon  the  principle  I  have  already  stated, — 
perfect  freedom  in  each  State,  under  the  guaranties  of  the 
Constitution,  to  determine  for  itself,  without  external  inter- 
ference, whether  it  will  abolish,  continue,  or  establish  slavery 
within  its  own  limits. 

I  return  again,  for  an  instant,  to  the  question  of  acquiring 
new  territory,  as  territory,  belonging  to  other  independent 
nations.  We  have  done  so  in  two  instances,  —  by  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana  in  1808,  and  Florida  in  1820.  Slavery 
existed  in  both ;  and,  at  the  time  of  acquiring  them,  no  pro- 
vision was  made  for  abolishing  or  restraining  it.  They 
were,  in  this  respect,  taken  as  they  were  found.  I  refer  to 
these  cases  to  show  that  there  has  been  no  interference  with 
slavery,  by  those  who  are  opposed  to  it  in  principle,  where  it 
has  actually  existed,  when  acquiring  new  territory,  and  that 
they  have  been  willing  on  such  occasions  to  leave  it  to  the 
silent  influences  of  the  moral  and  physical  causes,  which 
must  ultimately  determine  its  limits,  both  in  point  of  time 
and  geographical  extent. 

A  higher  question  than  any  ever  yet  presented  to  us  is 
made  by  this  bill.  It  proposes  an  appropriation  of  money 
to  purchase  territory  from  Mexico,  —  a  measure  of  which  I 
approve.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  appropriation  and  the  pur- 
chase.    I  have  always  been  in  favor  of  acquiring  California 


184  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

on  just  terms.     Its  ports  on   the  Pacific  Ocean  would  be 
invaluable  to  us,  and  they  are  of  little  use  to  Mexico. 

By  a  fundamental  law  of  the  Mexican  republic,  slavery 
is  prohibited  throughout  its  political  jurisdiction.  I  know  it 
has  been  assumed  that  slavery  exists  in  Mexico ;  but  I  be- 
lieve it  will  be  found  that  the  assertion  has  been  made  with- 
out sufficient  consideration.  It  is  not  denied  that  slavery 
is  forever  prohibited  by  the  constitution  of  Mexico.  The 
prohibition  was,  I  believe,  first  proclaimed  by  President 
Guerrero,  in  18S9^  it  has  since  been  ingrafted  upon  the 
constitution.  I  am  aware  that  barbarous  usages,  established 
under  the  Spanish  rule,  still  continue,  and  among  them  some 
which  enforce  the  collection  of  debts  by  personal  restraint 
of  the  debtor.  But  they  do  not  exceed  in  barbarity  the  laws 
of  some  of  our  States,  in  which  debt  was,  until  very  recently, 
ajid  is  perhaps  now,  treated  as  a  crime,  and  punished  by 
imprisonment.  The  old  colonial  usages  of  Mexico  do  no 
more  than  to  compel  a  debtor  to  pay  his  debt  by  labor,  and 
give  the  creditor  a  control  over  his  person  until  it  is  paid. 
In  the  city  of  Mexico,  if  a  common  laborer  owes  money,  his 
creditor  may  send  him  to  a  bakery,  and  keep  him  there  until 
he  has  paid  his  debt.  It  is  a  usage  of  the  place.  The 
jpeones,  as  they  are  termed,  are  common  laborers.  The 
term  was,  I  believe,  originally  derived  from  Asia.  It  was 
in  vogue  in  the  early  periods  of  the  Spanish  dominion  in 
Mexico.  In  the  second  despatch  of  Fernando  Cortez  to  the 
Emperor  Charles  V.,  (the  first  is  not  extant,)  in  the  original 
Spanish,  he  speaks  of  his  departure  from  Vera  Cruz  with 
fifteen  horse,  and  trescientos  peones^  —  three  hundred  foot- 
soldiers.  The  military  application  of  the  term  is  obsolete  in 
Mexico,  and  it  is  now  applied,  I  believe,  exclusively  to  com- 
mon laborers.  They  constitute,  perhaps,  a  third  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  republic.  Multitudes  of  them  labor  on  the 
large  estates  {haciendas)  for  their  daily  bread  ;  and  if  they 
become  indebted  to  the  proprietor,  he  may  compel  them  to 
remain  on  the  estate  until  they  pay  him.      This  is  the  extent 


THE  THREE  MILLION  BILL.  185 

of  what  is  termed  slavery  in  Mexico.  It  is  an  arbitrary 
process  of  enforcing  the  payment  of  debts ;  and  it  is  decid- 
edly more  merciful  than  imprisonment  for  debt.  It  is  a 
usage  regulated  by  colonial  laws,  which  are  yet  unrepealed, 
and  it  must  wear  out  gradually,  like  all  usages  which  have 
become  incorporated  into  the  social  organization  of  a  people, 
and  which  are  incompatible  with  its  spirit. 

I  will  read  a  few  passages  from  a  Spanish  work  on 
Mexico,  ("  Ensayo  Historic©  de  las  Revoluciones  de  Me- 
gico,"  —  Political  Essay  on  the  Revolutions  of  Mexico,) 
which  iHustrate  the  condition  of  that  republic  in  respect  to 
this  and  other  remnants  of  her  colonial  dependence.  The 
author  (Zavala)  speaks  of  the  laboring  classes,  or  peones^ 
thus :  — 

"More  than  three  millions  of  individuals  called  suddenly  to  enjoy 
the  most  ample  rights  of  citizenship,  from  the  state  of  the  most  op- 
probrious slavery,  without  any  immovable  property,  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  any  art  or  employment,  and  without  commerce  or  industry." 

The  following  passages  sketch  graphically  the  struggle 
which  is  in  progress  between  arbitrary  and  liberal  prin- 
ciples :  — 

"  From  the  year  1808  to  the  year  1830,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  space 
of  a  generation,  such  a  change  of  ideas,  of  opinions,  of  parties,  and  of 
interests  has  supervened,  as  to  overthrow  a  recognized  and  respected 
form  of  government,  and  to  transfer  seven  millions  of  people  from 
despotism  and  arbitrary  power  to  the  most  liberail  theories.  Custonis 
and  habits  alone,  which  are  transmitted  in  movements,  actions,  and 
continued  examples,  have  not  changed ;  for  how  can  abstract  doc- 
trines change  suddenly  the  course  of  life? 

"  There  is,  then,  a  continual  struggle  between  the  doctrines  which 
are  professed,  the  institutions  which  are  adopted,  the  principles  which 
are  established,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  abuses  which  are  sanctified, 
the  customs  which  prevail,  the  semi-feudal  rights  which  are  respected, 
on  the  other ;  between  national  sovereignty,  equality  of  political  rights, 
the  liberty  of  the  press,  popular  government,  on  the  One  side,  and 
between  the  intervention  of  an  armed  force,  privileged  rights,  relig- 
ious intolerance,  and  the  proprietors  of  immense  estates." 
24 


186  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

Mexico  is  still  in  a  state  of  political  transition,  passing 
from  an  arbitrary  to  a  liberal  system,  and  time  will  be 
necessary  to  enable  her  to  eradicate  and  heal  deeply-seated 
disorders  in  her  social  organization.  For  more  than  fifty 
years  after  the  establishment  of  our  independence,  debt  was 
punished  as  a  crime  in  my  own  State.  How  can  we  expect 
Mexico,  in  less  than  half  that  period,  to  cast  off  all  the 
badges  of  her  colonial  servitude  1  But  to  return  to  the  point 
from  which  I  departed,  —  she  has  a  provision  in  her  consti- 
tution prohibiting  slavery  forever. 

Shall  the  territory  we  acquire  from  her  come  to  us  with 
this  prohibition,  or  shall  it  be  made  an  area  for  the  further 
extension  of  slavery  ?  In  other  words,  shall  we  purchase 
territory  where  slavery  is  now  prohibited,  and  virtually 
rescind  the  prohibition  ]  Shall  we  ingraft  slavery  upon 
territory  where  it  does  not  lawfully  or  constitutionally  exist, 
using  the  arms  of  the  Union  to  conquer,  or  the  treasure  of 
the  Union  to  purchase  it  1  These  are  the  questions  presented 
to  us ;  and  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  legislatures  of 
New  York  and  other  non-slaveholding  States  have  antici- 
pated and  given  them  negative  answers.  The  New  York  re- 
solutions declare,  that,  "  if  any  territory  is  hereafter  acquired 
by  the  United  States,  or  annexed  thereto,  the  act  by  which 
such  territory  is  acquired  or  annexed,  w^hatever  such  act  may 
be,  should  contain  an  unalterable  fundamental  article  or  pro- 
vision, whereby  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a 
punishment  for  crime,  shall  be  forever  excluded  from  the  ter- 
ritory acquired  or  annexed";  and  they  instruct  the  Senators 
from  the  State  to  "  use  their  best  efforts  to  carry  into  effect 
the  views  expressed  in  the  foregoing  resolutions." 

This  vote  of  instruction  passed  the  Senate  unanimously, 
the  question  upon  it  having  been  taken  separately  from  the 
other  resolutions.  All  parties  and  divisions  of  party  concurred 
in  the  propriety  of  the  instruction,  and  of  course  in  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  the  resolutions ;  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  any  one  would  vote  to  instruct  Senators  to  do  what  he 


THE  THREE  JVHLLION  BILL. 


187 


believed  wrong.  I  ought  to  state,  that  three  votes  in  the 
Senate,  out  of  twenty-six,  (the  whole  number ,J  and  nine  votes 
in  the  House,  out  of  one  hundred  and  five,  were  cast  against 
the  resolution  containing  the  proposed  restriction  ;  but  I 
believe  all  the  members  who  gave  these  twelve  votes,  with, 
perhaps,  a  single  exception,  avowed  themselves  in  favor  of 
the  principle  asserted,  though  they  voted  against  the  resolu- 
tion, because  they  objected  to  the  form  in  which  it  was  pre- 
sented, or  the  time  selected  for  passing  it.  I  believe  I 
may  safely  say,  that  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  in  the 
legislature  on  the  subject  of  excluding  slavery  from  any 
territory  hereafter  to  be  acquired.  I  have  no  knowledge  of 
the  views  of  the  members,  except  so  far  as  they  may  be 
inferred  from  the  terms  of  the  resolution.  I  have  had  no 
communication,  direct  or  indirect,  with  any  one  of  them. 
But  it  may  be  reasonably  presumed  that  their  conclusions 
were  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that,  in  the  territory  bordering 
upon  us  on  all  sides,  slavery  is  excluded,  and  that  to  receive 
it  without  restriction  would  be,  according  to  the  construction 
of  those  who  oppose  restriction,  to  extend  and  establish 
slavery  where  it  is  not  now  permitted  to  exist.  On  this 
question,  I  believe  I  hazard  nothing  in  saying,  that  not  only 
New  York,  but  all  the  non-slaveholding  States,  are  undivided 
in  opinion. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  fo  which 
I  have  referred,  the  non-slaveholding  States  have  taken  no 
new  ground.  It  is  older  than  the  Constitution  under  which 
we  live.  It  belongs  to  the  era  of  the  Confederation,  —  to  the 
period  of  partial  organization,  which  intervened  between 
the  adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Federal  Government.  In  17^7?  when 
a  government  was  instituted  for  the  territory  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  river,  by  the  same  men,  or  the  associ- 
ates of  the  same  men,  who  were  the  authors  of  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  and  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, they  included  in  the  ordinance  a  provision  prohibiting 


188  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


slavery  and   involuntary  servitude.     I  will    read    it  to  the 
Senate :  — 

"There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the 
said  Territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted :  Provided,  always,  That  any 
person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  law- 
fully claimed  in  any  one  of  the  original  States,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her 
labor  or  service  aforesaid." 

The  proviso  in  the  bill  which  came  from  the  House  is  in 
substance  the  same. 

I  have  referred  to  the  year  1787  as  the  period  of  the 
adoption  of  the  provision  I  have  read.  But  it  had,  in  fact, 
a  still  earlier  origin.  It  was  proposed  in  1784  by  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, but  failed  for  want  of  the  votes  of  the  requisite  number 
of  States.  The  thirteen  original  States  then  composed  the 
Confederation ;  the  votes  were  taken  by  States,  each  State 
counting  one ;  seven  States,  or  a  majority,  were  necessary  to 
carry  any  question ;  some  questions  could  only  be  decided 
affirmatively  by  nine  votes ;  and  this  proposition  received  the 
votes  of  only  six  States.  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South 
Carolina,  at  that  time  voted  against  it.  North  Carolina  was 
divided.  Mr.  Jefferson  of  Virginia,  the  author  of  the  pro- 
vision, and  Mr.  Williamson  of  North  Carolina,  voted  in  its 
favor.  The  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
the  author  of  the  slavery  restriction  in  the  ordinance  of 
1787  are  the  same  person.  The  principles  proclaimed  in 
the  one  were  doubtless  designed  by  the  author  to  be  practi- 
cally enforced  in  the  other.  He  stands  before  the  world,  as 
far  as  the  obligations  of  our  social  condition  permitted,  con- 
sistent with  himself. 

The  ordinance,  of  which  the  provision  I  have  quoted  is  a 
part,  finally  passed  in  the  affirmative  in  1787?  with  a  slight 
modification  in  its  terms.  It  received  the  votes  of  eight 
States.  There  was  but  one  vote  against  it,  and  that  was 
given  by  a  member  from  New  York,  though  the  vote  of  the 


THE  THREE  MILLION  BILL.  IgQ 

State  was  given  for  it.  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  North 
Carolina,  and  Virginia  unanimously  supported  it.  Much  of 
the  Northwestern  Territory  was  then  a  forest,  and  in  the 
hands  of  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution  its  future  destiny 
was  placed.  They  performed  their  duty  under  that  high 
sense  of  conscientiousness  and  responsibility  which  seems  to 
have  guided  all  their  deliberations  in  providing  for  their  own 
government  and  that  of  the  States  then  about  to  spring  up 
in  the  bosom  of  the  wilderness ;  and  I  venture  to  say  that 
the  entire  population  of  that  wide-spread  territory,  now  in- 
stinct with  life,  and  strength,  and  freedom,  and  intelligence, 
and  all  the  blessings  of  civilization,  looks  back  with  approba- 
tion and  gratitude  upon  the  conduct  of  those  who  gave 
direction  and  shape  to  the  political  character  of  the  com- 
munities it  contains. 

The  non-slaveholding  States  have,  by  their  resolutions, 
placed  themselves  upon  the  ground  taken  by  Jefferson  more 
than  sixty  years  ago.  Circumstances  render  the  position  of 
Jefferson  even  higher  than  that  now  taken  by  them.  Slavery 
existed  de  jure,  if  not  de  facto,  in  the  Northwestern  Terri- 
tory in  1787'  The  ordinance  was  a  virtual  abolition  of  it. 
The  proposition,  originally  made  in  1784t  by  Mr.  Jefferson, 
was,  that  after  the  year  1800  it  should  cease  to  exist.  He 
proposed  to  take  sixteen  years  for  its  abolition.  The  ordi- 
nance, as  it  passed,  went  into  immediate  effect.  The  non- 
slaveholding  States  only  ask,  that,  in  the  acquisition  of  terri- 
tory now  free,  slavery  shall  not  be  established.  In  the  one 
case,  it  was  abolished  where  it  existed ;  in  the  other,  it  is 
only  proposed  to  be  excluded  where  it  does  not  exist. 

The  course  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  has  been  de- 
nounced as  aggressive.  Sir,  it  has,  from  the  earliest  period, 
been  liberal  and  forbearing.  They  have  acquiesced  in  all  the 
propositions  which  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  to  add 
southern  territory  to  the  Union  ;  they  have  concurred  in 
appropriating  money  for  the  purpose,  contributing  their  own 
share,  and  thus  bearing  a  part  of  the  burden  of  the  purchase. 


190  SPEECHES    IN   THE    SENATE. 

They  united  in  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  in  the  purchase  of 
Florida,  and  in  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Tliey  have  contrib- 
uted in  these  cases  to  the  extension  of  slavery  over  a  geo- 
graphical area  exceeding  that  of  the  thirteen  original  States, 
— equal  to  four  fifths  of  that  of  the  original  States  and  their 
territories.  They  have  voted  for  the  admission  of  States  from 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  with  provisions  in  their  constitutions 
not  only  recognizing  slavery,  but  prohibiting  its  abolition  by 
the  legislative  power  of  those  States.  They  have  acceded 
to  all  this  upon  the  principle  of  leaving  the  States  free  to 
regulate  this  subject  for  themselves  within  their  own  limits. 
In  Texas,  slavery  existed  only  nominally.  That  republic 
had  an  area  of  more  than  three  hundred  thousand  square 
miles,  according  to  the  boundaries  claimed  by  its  congress. 
Its  population,  bond  and  free,  when  admitted  into  the  Union, 
did  not  exceed  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  souls.  It 
was,  for  the  most  part,  unpopulated.  Its  admission  into  the 
Union  with  slavery  was,  therefore,  a  virtual  extension  of 
slavery  over  an  area  equal  to  more  than  half  the  area  of  the 
original  thirteen  States.  We  were  told  that  attempts  had 
been  made  by  foreign  governments  to  abolish  slavery  in 
Texas,  and  that  the  success  of  these  attempts  would  endan- 
ger the  domestic  tranquillity  of  the  Southern  States.  The 
non-slaveholding  States  were  appealed  to,  on  this  and  other 
grounds,  to  unite  in  the  immediate  annexation  of  Texas. 
They  yielded  their  assent.  In  all  this  they  have  acqui- 
esced. Sir,  they  have  done  more:  they  have  contributed 
to  it ;  for  it  could  never  have  been  accomplished  but  by  the 
aid  of  Northern  votes.  They  believe  they  have  fulfilled  to- 
wards the  South  every  obligation  of  fraternal  duty.  And  yet 
they  are  accused  of  aggression,  because  they  will  not  consent 
to  the  extension  of  slavery  to  free  territory. 

We  have  been  told  by  our  Southern  friends,  with  few 
exceptions,  that  they  regarded  slavery  as  a  moral  and  social 
evil,  for  which  they  were  not  responsible,  —  an  evil  forced 
upon  them  by  foreign  rulers  during  their  colonial  depend- 


THE   THREE  MILLION   BILL.  I9I 

ence.  It  is  under  this  view  of  the  subject  that  they  have 
been  sustained  by  their  friends  in  the  North,  not  only  in  the 
full  possession  and  enjoyment  of  all  their  rights  over  this 
subject  within  their  own  limits  under  the  Constitution,  (this 
is  a  duty  none  should  be  so  unscrupulous  as  to  disre- 
gard,) but  in  purchasing  slave  territory,  and  establishing 
slaveholding  States.  Acquisition  has  gone  on  uninterrupted 
by  us,  and  indeed  aided  by  us,  until  there  is  no  longer  any 
slave  territory  on  this  continent  to  bring  into  the  Union, 
We  have  literally  absorbed  it  all. 

The  non-slaveholding  States  are  now  asked  to  go  further : 
to  purchase  free  territory  and  leave  it  open  to  the  extension 
of  slavery;  to  extend  to  free  soil  and  to  free  communities  an 
evil  which  our  Southern  friends  have  told  us  was  forced  upon 
them  against  their  wishes  and  consent.  The  unanimity  with 
which  the  legislatures  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
and  other  States  have  acted  in  reference  to  this  proposition, 
is  but  an  index  to  the  universal  opinion  which  pervades  the 
whole  North  and  West.  They  never  can  give  their  assent 
to  it.  It  is  regarded  by  all  parties  as  involving  a  principle 
which  rises  far  above  the  fleeting  interests  of  the  day,  —  a 
principle  which  they  should  not  be  asked  to  yield ;  for  by 
yielding  it,  they  would  consider  themselves  instrumental  to 
the  extension  of  what  they  believe  to  be  wrong,  and  what, 
in  their  opinion,  nothing  but  necessity  can  justify. 

If  the  principle  by  which  the  non-slaveholding  States  have 
been  governed  in  acquiring  territory  is  acquiesced  in,  this 
question  may  be  settled  in  a  moment,  and  without  agitation. 
Let  the  territory,  if  any  is  acquired,  be  taken  as  it  is  found, 
—  with  the  provision  of  the  Mexican  constitution  abolishing 
slavery  forever.  Apply  to  it  the  principle  which  was  applied 
to  Florida  and  Texas.  The  non-slaveholdingf  States  have 
never  refused  to  acquire  territory  with  slavery  where  it  act- 
ually existed.  Let  the  South  not  refuse  now  to  take  free 
territory  where  slavery  does  not  exist,  and  leave  it  free. 

We  are  told  that  slavery  must  not  be  excluded  from  the 


192 


SPEECHES   IN  THE   SENATE. 


territories,  because  emigrants  from  the  Southern  States  can- 
not go  there  with  their  property,  or,  in  other  words,  their 
slaves,  and  that  this  would  be  "  an  entire  exclusion  of  the 
slaveholding  States."  Sir,  I  do  not  so  understand  it.  It 
is  not  exclusion  to  the  slaveholder,  nor  is  it  exclusion  to  the 
free  laborer  of  the  South  who  owns  no  slaves.  The  slave- 
holder who  emigrates  to  territory  where  slavery  does  not 
exist  may  employ  free  labor.  The  free  laborer  of  the  South 
who  emigrates  to  free  territory  is  surely  not  injured  in  his 
condition.  It  is  not  so  with  the  free  laborer  of  the  North 
in  respect  to  slave  territory.  He  will  not  go  where  he  is 
compelled  to  toil  side  by  side  with  the  slave.  He  is  as 
effectually  excluded  as  he  would  be  by  a  positive  prohibition. 
He  will  not  emigrate  with  his  property  to  territory  open 
to  slaves.  The  property  of  the  free  laborer  is  in  himself, 
—  in  his  powers  of  exertion,  his  capacity  for  endurance, 
in  the  labor  of  his  hands.  To  him  these  are  of  as  much 
value  as  the  property  which  the  master  has  in  his  slaves. 
I  am  not  very  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  internal  con- 
dition of  the  Southern  States ;  but  I  suppose  there  is  a  very 
numerous  class  in  them,  especially  in  Maryland,  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  —  I  mean  the  non- 
slaveholding  free  laborers,  —  who  will  be  benefited  by  pro- 
viding that  territory,  which  is  free  when  acquired,  shall 
remain  free.  I  think  I  am  not  mistaken  in  supposing 
this  class  to  be  far  more  numerous  in  some,  if  not  all  the 
States  I  have  named,  than  the  class  holding  slaves.  Am  I 
mistaken  in  supposing  free  labor  is  a  powerful,  if  not  a 
dominant,  interest  in  the  States  referred  to  1  Wherever  free 
labor  has  gone  forth  on  this  continent,  the  forest  has  bowed 
before  it;  towns  and  villages  have  sprung  up  like  magic 
in  its  track ;  canals,  railroads,  and  busy  industry,  in  all  its 
imaginable  forms,  have  marked  its  progress ;  civilization, 
in  its  highest  attributes,  follows  it;  knowledge  and  religion 
go  with  it  hand  in  hand.  Obliterate  everything  else,  and 
you  may  trace  its  march  by  the  school-house,  sowing  broad- 


THE  THREE  MILLION  BILL.  I93 

cast  the  seeds  of  intelligence,  and  the  spire,  "  losing  itself 
in  air,  as  if  guiding  the  thoughts  of  man  to  heaven."  Sir, 
I  speak  of  free  labor  everywhere,  —  in  the  South  as  well 
as  the  North.  Even  on  the  hypothesis  of  an  equality  in 
the  claims  of  free  and  slave  labor,  (which  I  do  not  admit,) 
the  argument  in  favor  of  taking  this  territory  as  we  find 
it  appears  to  me  unanswerable. 

Mr.  President,  I  would  not  have  voted  to  connect  the 
proviso  in  the  bill  passed  by  the  House,  and  now  awaiting 
the  action  of  the  Senate,  with  any  measure  for  the  prose- 
cution of  the  war.  My  State  would  not  have  desired  it. 
The  resolutions  of  the  legislature  are  in  favor  of  all  proper 
measures  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  From  the  com- 
mencement of  the  war,  my  honorable  colleague  and  myself 
have  sustained  all  measures  recommended  by  the  admin- 
istration for  carrying  it  on ;  and,  as  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs,  I  have  had  some  share  in  matur- 
ing them.  I  have  voted  for  the  pecuniary  means  asked 
for,  the  number  and  description  of  troops  which  were 
deemed  necessary  for  the  purpose,  and  a  commanding  gen- 
eral for  the  armies  in  Mexico,  with  a  rank  in  some  de- 
gree commensurate  with  the  numerical  force  to  be  combined, 
and  moved  in  combination.  I  have  opposed  all  propositions 
to  clog  military  bills  with  extraneous  matter,  thus  postpon- 
ing our  action  upon  them  at  a  critical  period  in  the  cam- 
paign. The  bill  under  consideration  is  of  a  'different  char- 
acter. It  is  a  proposition  to  purchase  territory.  My  friend, 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,^  with 
his  characteristic  frankness  and  directness  of  purpose, — 
qualities  as  honorable  in  a  legislator  as  they  are  in  a  man, 
—  has  gone  so  far  as  to  indicate  the  extent  of  the  acquisi- 
tion which,  in  his  opinion,  we  ought  to  expect,  —  California 
and  New  Mexico.  The  object,  then,  is  not  in  doubt.  It 
is  avowedly  to  acquire  foreign  territory.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, is   it  not  appropriate  to  know  on  what  terms 

1  Mr.  Sevier. 
25 


194  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

foreign  territory  shall  become  territory  of  the  United  States, 
when  on  these  terms  may  depend  the  propriety  of  apply- 
ing the  public  treasure  to  make  the  purchase!  The  leg- 
islature of  New  York  so  considered  it.  The  questions  of 
time  and  circumstances  were  fully  discussed  before  the  adop- 
tion of  the  resolutions.  The  proposition  under  discussion 
is  not  a  measure  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  It  was 
not  deemed  an  indispensable  peace  measure ;  for  when  the 
pecuniary  claims  are  all  on  our  side,  an  appropriation  of 
money  necessarily  contemplates  objects  beyond  that  of  mak- 
ing peace.  I  say  this  in  justice  to  the  New  York  legislature, 
as  well  as  its  Representatives  in  Congress,  who  were,  with 
a  single  exception,  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  proviso.  If 
it  shall  fail  to  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Senate  now,  it 
must  again  arise  on  any  proposition  to  acquire  new  ter- 
ritory, and  arise  in  a  form  in  which  a  decision  cannot  be 
avoided.  It  will  be  sustained  with  greater  unanimity ;  for 
those  who  now  hesitate  on  the  point  of  time,  or  from  a  nat- 
ural desire  to  postpone  the  settlement  of  embarrassing  issues, 
will  be  found  in  its  favor. 

Whatever  doubt  may  have  been  entertained  heretofore 
with  regard  to  the  necessity  of  making  the  declaration  con- 
tained in  the  proviso,  I  think  there  can  be  none  now.  It 
is  distinctly  assumed  that  there  is  no  power  under  the  Con- 
stitution to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories.  While  it 
is  contended  that  there  is  power  under  the  Constitution  to 
acquire  slave  territory,  and  to  introduce  slave  States  into 
the  Union,  it  is  denied  that  there  is  any  authority  to  restrain 
or  prohibit  slavery  in  free  territory.  We  have  gone  on  and 
introduced  into  the  Union  all  the  slave  territory  on  this 
continent;  and  when  we  reach  free  territory,  we  are  told 
that  the  extension  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  to 
it  renders  it,  ipso  facto^  by  virtue  of  the  compromises  of 
the  Constitution,  open  to  slavery.  According  to  this  con- 
struction, the  extension  of  our  Constitution  and  laws  to  any 
portion  of  the  Mexican  territory,  either  by  conquest  or  peace- 


THE  THREE  MILLION  BILL.  I95 

* 
ful  acquisition,  overturns  the  local  law,  overturns  the  provis- 
ion of  the  constitution  of  Mexico,  which  declares  slavery  to 
be  forever  prohibited.  Mr.  President,  is  this  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  the  Constitution  under  which  we  live  1  Is  it 
armed  with  full  power  to  bring  slave  territory  into  the 
Union,  but  void  of  all  power  to  bring  in  free  territory  and 
maintain  it  free  ]  Is  this  the  government,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Jefferson,  our  fathers  fought  for  ?  The  construc- 
tion referred  to  would  establish  as  a  fundamental  provision 
of  the  acquisition  of  new  territory  that  it  shall  be  open  to 
slavery,  even  though  free  when  acquired.  Sir,  I  have  not 
time,  at  this  late  period  of  the  session,  to  discuss  this  ques- 
tion with  the  deliberation  and  care  its  importance  demands. 
But  a  future  occasion  may  come,  and  I  will  not  shrink  from 
the  discussion. 

I  have  heard  with  great  regret  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union  spoken  of  in  connection  with  this  measure.  I  can 
hardly  think  those  who  so  connect  the  two  subjects  are 
aware  of  the  position  in  which  they  place  themselves.  It 
is  virtually  declaring,  that,  unless  we  will  consent  to  bring 
free  territory  into  the  Union,  and  leave  it  open  to  the  exten- 
sion of  slavery,  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved.  Our  South- 
ern friends  have  heretofore  stood  upon  the  ground  of  de- 
fence ;  of  maintaining  slavery  within  their  own  limits 
against  interference  from  without.  The  ground  of  exten- 
sion is  now  taken,  and  of  extending  slavery  upon  free 
territory.  I  cannot  believe  this  position  will  be  sustained 
by  the  Southern  States.  It  is  new  ground,  and  it  is  taken 
with  avowals  which  are  calculated  to  spread  surprise  and 
alarm  throughout  the  non-slaveholding  States. 

The  course  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  under  these 
new  developments  will,  I  doubt  not,  be  steady  and  firm. 
No  State  will  stand  by  the  Union  with  a  more  inflexible 
determination  to  maintain  it  than  New  York,  —  none  will 
adhere  more  tenaciously  to  all  the  obligations  of  the  Con- 
stitution.    And  yet,  sir,  none  could  hope  for  a  higher  career 


196  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

of  prosperity  if  the  States  were  to  be  dissevered.  In  eighteen 
years  her  entire  debt,  under  the  provisions  of  her  new  consti- 
tution, will  be  paid,  and  she  will  be  left  with  an  annual  sur- 
plus income  of  at  least  three  millions  of  dollars  from  her  in- 
ternal improvements,  after  defraying  all  the  expenses  of  her 
government.  Standing,  as  she  does,  on-  the  line  of  commer- 
cial intercourse  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  great  lakes, 
with  the  rich  and  productive  States  bordering  on  them,  the 
addition  of  the  custom-house  to  her  internal  channels  of  com- 
munication would  make  her  the  wealthiest  community,  in 
proportion  to  her  population,  within  the  pale  of  civilization. 
She  would  be  an  empire  in  herself.  But  she  scorns  to 
enter  into  an  estimate  of  these  advantages.  She  will  not 
"  calculate  the  value  of  the  Union."  She  prefers  to  stand, 
as  she  does,  on  the  same  footing  with  the  smallest  of  the 
States,  herself  the  most  populous  and  powerful,  rather  than 
to  stand  foremost  and  preeminent  in  the  field  of  disunion. 
In  whatever  manner  this  question  shall  be  decided,  she  will 
be  found  on  the  side  of  the  Union,  not  to  resist  dismem- 
berment by  force,  —  for  disunion  is  better  than  intestine 
war,  —  but  to  contribute  by  her  influence  and  her  counsels 
to  uphold  the  fabric  of  the  federative  system. 

Mr.  President,  I  regret  to  hiear  either  disunion  or  civil 
war  spoken  of  in  connection  with  this  measure.  But,  I 
repeat,  the  former  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  latter.  In  wars 
waged  with  foreign  countries,  deplorable  as  they  always  are, 
there  are  some  moral  fruits  which  atone,  in  a  slight  degree, 
for  their  accompanying  evils.  There  is  the  sense  of  national 
honor,  —  the  parent  of  high  achievement;  the  sentiment  of 
patriotic  devotion  to  the  country,  which  shrinks  from  no 
labor  or  sacrifice  in  the  public  cause ;  and  the  feeling  of 
mutual  sympathy  and  dependence,  which  pervades  and  unites 
all  classes  in  the  hour  of  adversity  and  peril.  Far  as  they 
are  overbalanced  by  the  domestic  bereavement  and  the  public 
evil  which  war  always  brings  in  its  train,  they  serve  to 
purify  the  thoughts  of  something  of  their  selfishness  by  turn- 


THE   THREE  MILLION  BILL.  IQjf 

ing  them  away  from  the  sordid  channels  in  which  they  are 
too  apt  to  run.  But  civil  war  has  no  ameliorations.  It  is 
pure,  unmixed  demoralization.  It  dissolves  all  national  and 
domestic  ties.  It  renders  selfishness  more  odious,  by  wed- 
ding it  to  hatred  and  cruelty.  The  after-generation,  which 
reaps  the  bitter  harvest  of  intestine  war,  is  scarcely  less  to  be 
commiserated  than  that  by  whose  hands  the  poisonous  seed 
is  sown.  Less,  far  less  than  these,  would  be  the  evils  of 
disunion. 

But,  sir,  we  shall  have  neither.  The  interests,  the  feel- 
ings, the  good  sense  of  the  country,  all  revolt  at  internal 
dissension  in  every  form.  If  this  question  shall  be  decided 
against  the  non-slaveholding  States,  if  their  voice  shall  be 
unheeded.  New  York  will  not,  for  that  reason,  listen  to 
any  suicidal  project  of  dismemberment.  No,  sir ;  no.  By 
no  agency  of  hers  shall  the  fraternal  bonds  which  unite 
her  to  her  sisters  be  rent  asunder.  Their  destiny,  whatever 
it  may  be,  shall  be  also  hers.  Be  it  for  evil  or  for  good, 
she  will  cling  to  them  to  the  last.  But  I  say  for  her  and 
in  her  name,  —  I  believe  I  do  not  misunderstand  her  reso- 
lutions, —  that  she  can  never  consent  to  become  a  party  to 
the  extension  of  slavery  to  free  territory  on  this  continent. 
If  it  is  to  be  extended  to  new  areas,  —  areas  now  conse- 
crated to  free  labor,  —  the  work  must  be  done  by  other 
hands  than  hers ;  and  she  must  leave  it  to  time  and  to 
the  order  of  Providence  to  determine  what  shall  be  the 
legitimate  fruits  of  measures  which  she  believes  to  be 
wrong,  and  to  which  she  can  never  yield  her  assent. 


THE   WAR   WITH   MEXICO. 

The  following  speech  was  delivered  on  the  26th  of  January,  184^ 
in  support  of  a  bill  to  raise  an  additional  military  force  with  a  view 
retain  possession  of  the  territory  of  Mexico,  until  she  should  consent 
makepeace  on  terms  satisfactory  to  the  United  States.  The  resolu- 
tions of  Mr.  Calhoun,  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Dix  at  the  commencement  of 
his  speech,  declared  that,  "  to  conquer  Mexico,  and  to  hold  it  either  as 
a  province  or  incorporate  it  into  the  Union,  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  avowed  object  for  which  war  has  been  prosecuted;  a  departure 
from  the  settled  policy  of  the  government ;  in  conflict  with  its  char- 
acter and  genius ;  and  in  the  end  subversive  of  our  free  and  popular 
institutions." 

Mr.  President  :  It  was  my  wish  to  address  the  Senate 
on  the  resolutions  offered  by  the  Senator  from  South  Caro- 
Hna,^  and  not  on  this  bill.  I  should  have  preferred  to  do 
so,  because  I  am  always  unwilling  to  delay  action  on  any 
measure  relating  to  the  war,  and  because  the  resolutions 
afford  a  wider  field  for  inquiry  and  discussion.  But  as  the 
debate  has  become  general,  and  extended  to  almost  every 
topic  that  can  well  be  introduced  under  either,  the  force  of 
the  considerations  by  which  I  have  been  influenced  has 
become  so  weakened,  that  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary 
to  defer  longer  what  I  wish  to  say. 

Two  leading  questions  divide  and  agitate  the  public  mind 
in  respect  to  the  future  conduct  of  the  war  with  Mexico. 
The  first  of  these  questions  is,  Shall  we  withdraw  our  forces 
from  the  Mexican  territory,  and  leave  the  subject  of  in- 
demnity for  injuries  and  the  adjustment  of  a  boundary  be- 
tween the  two  republics  to  future  negotiation,  relying  on 
a  magnanimous  course  of  conduct  on  our  part  to  produce 
a  corresponding  feeling  on  the  part  of  Mexico  1  There 
are    other   propositions,  subordinate  to  this,  which  may  be 

1  Mr.  Calhoun. 


THE   WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  I99 

considered  as  parts  of  the  same  general  scheme  of  policy,  — 
such  as  that  of  withdrawing  from  the  Mexican  capital  and 
the  interior  districts,  and  assuming  an  exterior  line  of  oc- 
cupation. I  shall  apply  to  all  these  propositions  the  same 
arguments;  and  if  I  were  to  undertake  to  distinguish 
between  them,  I  am  not  sure  that  I  should  make  any  dif- 
ference in  the  force  of  the  application.  For,  whether  we 
withdraw  from  Mexico  altogether,  or  take  a  defensive  line 
which  shall  include  all  the  territory  we  intend  to  hold  per- 
manently as  indemnity,  the  consequences  to  result  from  it, 
so  far  as  they  affect  the  question  of  peace,  would,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  be  the  same. 

The  second  question  is.  Shall  we  retain  the  possession 
of  the  territory  we  have  acquired  until  Mexico  shall  consent 
to  make  a  treaty  of  peace  which  shall  provide  ample  com- 
pensation for  the  wrongs  of  which  we  complain,  and  settle 
to  our  satisfaction  the  boundary  in  dispute! 

Regarding  these  questions  as  involving  the  permanent 
welfare  of  the  country,  I  have  considered  them  with  the 
greatest  solicitude;  and  though  never  more  profoundly  im- 
pressed with  a  sense  of  the  responsibility  which  belongs 
to  the  solution  of  problems  of  such  magnitude  and  difficulty, 
my  reflections  have,  nevertheless,  led  me  to  a  clear  and 
settled  conviction  as  to  the  course  which  justice  and  policy 
seem  to  indicate  and  demand.  The  first  question,  in  itself 
of  the  highest  importance,  has  been  answered  affirmatively 
on  this  floor  ;  and  it  derives  additional  interest  from  the 
fact,  that  it  has  also  been  answered  in  the  affirmative  by 
a  statesman,  now  retired  from  the  busy  scenes  of  political 
life,  who,  from  his  talents,  experience,  and  public  services, 
justly  commands  the  respect  of  his  countrymen,  and  whose 
opinions  on  any  subject  are  entitled  to  be  weighed  with 
candor  and  deliberation.  I  have  endeavored  to  attribute 
to  his  opinions,  and  to  those  of  others  who  coincide  with 
him  wholly  or  in  part,  all  the  importance  which  belongs 
to  them,  and  to  consider   them  with  the  deference  due  to 


£00  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

the  distinguished  sources  from  which  they  emanate.  I 
beheve  I  have  done  so ;  and  yet  I  have,  after  the  fullest 
reflection,  come  to  conclusions  totally  different  from  theirs. 
I  believe  it  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  unjust  to  our- 
selves, possessing,  as  we  do,  well-founded  claims  on  Mexico, 
to  withdraw  our  forces  from  her  territory  altogether ;  and 
exceedingly  unwise,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  looking  to  the 
future  political  relations  of  the  two  countries,  to  withdraw 
from  it  partially,  and  assume  a  line  of  defence,  without  a 
treaty  of  peace.  On  the  contrary,  I  am  in  favor  of  re- 
taining possession,  for  the  present,  of  all  we  have  acquired, 
not  as  a  permanent  conquest,  but  as  the  most  effective 
means  of  bringing  about,  what  all  most  earnestly  desire,  a 
restoration  of  peace  ;  and  I  will,  with  the  indulgence  of 
the  Senate,  proceed  to  state,  with  as  much  brevity  as  the 
magnitude  of  the  subject  admits,  my  objections  to  the  course 
suggested  by  the  first  question,  and  my  reasons  in  favor 
of  the  course  suggested  by  the  other. 

I  desire,  at  the  outset,  to  state  this  proposition,  to  the 
truth  of  which,  I  think,  all  will  yield  their  assent :  that  no 
policy  which  does  not  carry  with  it  a  reasonable  assurance 
of  healing  the  dissensions  dividing  the  two  countries,  and 
of  restoring,  permanently,  amicable  relations  between  them, 
ought  to  receive  our  support.  We  may  differ  in  opinion, 
and  perhaps  hopelessly,  as  to  the  measures  best  calculated 
to  produce  this  result;  but  if  it  were  possible  for  us  to 
come  to  an  agreement  in  respect  to  them,  the  propriety 
of  their  adoption  could  scarcely  admit  of  controversy.  This 
proposition  being  conceded,  as  I  think  it  will  be,  it  follows 
that,  if  the  measure  proposed  —  to  withdraw  our  forces 
from  Mexico  —  be  not  calculated  to  bring  about  a  speedy 
and  permanent  peace,  but,  on  the  contrary,  if  it  be  rather 
calculated  to  open  a  field  of  domestic  dissension,  and  pos- 
sibly of  external  interference,  in  that  distracted  country,  to 
be  followed,  in  all  probability,  by  a  renewal  of  active  hos- 
tilities with  us,  and   under   circumstances  to  make  us  feel 


THE   WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  gOl 

severely  the  loss  of  the  advantage  which  we  have  gained, 
and  which  it  is  proposed  voluntarily  to  surrender,  —  then, 
it  appears  to  me,  it  can  present  no  claim  to  our  favorable 
consideration.  I  shall  endeavor  to  show,  before  I  sit  down, 
that  the  policy  referred  to  is  exposed  to  all  these  dangers 
and  evils. 

I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  an  examination  of  the 
origin  of  the  war.  From  the  moment  the  collision  took 
place  between  our  forces  and  those  of  Mexico  on  the  Rio 
Grande,  I  considered  all  hope  of  an  accommodation,  with- 
out a  full  trial  of  strength  in  the  field,  to  be  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. I  believed  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Mexicans 
would  render  any  such  hope  illusive.  Whether  that  col- 
lision was  produced  in  any  degree  by  our  own  mistakes, 
or  whether  the  war  itself  was  brought  about  by  the  man- 
ner in  which  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  Union,  are  ques- 
tions I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  now ;  and,  if  it  were  not 
too  late,  I  would  submit  whether  the  discussion  could  serve 
any  other  purpose  but  to  exhibit  divided  councils  to  our 
adversary,  and  to  inspire  him  with  the  hope  of  obtaining 
more  favorable  terms  of  peace  by  protracting  his  resist- 
ance. No  one  can  be  less  disposed  than  myself  to  abridge, 
in  any  degree,  the  legitimate  boundaries  of  discussion.  But 
I  am  not  disposed  to  enter  into  such  an  investigation  now. 
The  urgent  concern  is  to  know,  not  how  the  war  origi- 
nated, not  who  is  responsible  for  it,  but  in  what  manner 
it  can  be  brought  to  a  speedy  and  honorable  termination,  — 
whether,  as  some  suppose,  we  ought  to  retire  from  the 
field,  or  whether,  as  appears  to  me,  the  only  hope  of  an 
accommodation  lies  in  a  firm  and  determined  maintenance 
of  our  position. 

The  probable  consequences  of  an  abandonment  of  the  ad- 
vantages we  have  gained  may  be  better  understood  by  see- 
ing what  those  advantages  are.  I  speak  in  a  military  point 
of  view.  While  addressing  the  Senate  in  February  last,  on 
an  army  bill  then   under  consideration,  I  had  occasion  to 


g02  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

state  that  the  whole  of  northern  Mexico,  as  far  south  as 
the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Grande  and  the  £6th  parallel  of 
latitude,  was  virtually  in  our  possession,  comprehending 
about  two  thirds  of  the  territory  of  that  republic,  and  about 
one  tenth  of  its  inhabitants.  Our  acquisitions  have  since 
been  augmented  by  the  reduction  of  Vera  Cruz  and  the 
Castle  of  San  Juan  de  Ulua ;  the  capture  of  Jalapa,  Perote, 
and  Puebla ;  the  surrender  of  the  city  of  Mexico,  and  the 
occupation  of  the  three  States  of  Vera  Cruz,  Puebla,  and 
Mexico,  with  nearly  two  millions  and  a  half  of  souls.  It 
is  true,  our  forces  have  not  overrun  every  portion  of  the 
territory  of  those  States ;  but  their  chief  towns  have  been 
reduced,  the  military  forces  which  defended  them  captured 
or  dispersed,  their  civil  authorities  superseded,  their  capital 
occupied,  and  the  whole  machinery  of  government  within 
the  conquered  States  virtually  transferred  to  our  hands. 
All  this  has  been  achieved  \vJth  an  army  at  no  one  period 
exceeding  fifteen  thousand  men,  and  against  forces  from 
three  to  five  times  more  numerous  than  those  actually  en- 
gaged on  our  side,  in  every  conflict  since  the  fall  of  Vera 
Cruz. 

I  had  occasion,  on  presenting  some  army  petitions  a  few 
weeks  ago,  to  refer  to  the  brilliant  successes  by  which  these 
acquisitions  were  made ;  and  I  will  not  trespass  on  the  at- 
tention of  the  Senate  by  repeating  what  I  said  at  that 
time.^     But  I  cannot  forbear  to  say,  that  there  is  a  moral 

1  The  reference  alluded  to  is  con-  arms,  until  then  unknown  to  the  inliab- 

tained  in  the  following  extract :  —  itants  of  Mexico,  was  sufficient  in  itself 

"  I  will  not  detain  the  Senate  by  en-  to  make  his  force,  small  as  it  was,  irre- 

tering  into  any  detailed  review  of  these  sistible.     In  the  eyes  of  that  simple 

events  with  a  view  to  enforce  the  ap-  and   superstitious    people,  he    seemed 

peal  contained  in  the  petition  on  the  armed  with  superhuman  power.    Otlier 

attention.     I  hope,  however,  I  may  be  circumstances    combined    to    faciUtate 

indulged  in  saying,  in  justice  to  those  his    success.      The    native  tribes,   by 

who  bore  a  part  in  them,  that  the  first  whom  the  country  was  possessed,  were 

conquest  of  Mexico  cannot,  as  it  ap-  distinct  communities,   not  alwaj^s  ac- 

pears  to  me,   be  compared  with   the  knowledging  the  same  head,  and  often 

second,  either  as  to  the  obstacles  over-  divided  among  themselves   by  impla- 

come,  or  as  to  the  relative  strength  of  cable  hostility  and  resentments.  Cortez, 

the  invaders.     The  triumphs  of  Cortez  by  his  consummate  prudence  and  art, 

were  achieved  by  policy,  and  by  supe-  turned  these  dissensions  to  his  own  ac- 

riority  in  discipline  and  in  the  imple-  count;   he  lured  the  parties  to  them 

ments  of  warfare.     The  use  of  fire-  into  his  own  service,  and  when  he  pre- 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  203 

in  the  contest,  the  effect  of  which  is  not  hkely  to  be  lost 
on  ourselves  or  others.  At  the  call  of  their  country,  our 
people  have  hterally  rushed  to  arms.  The  emulation  has 
been  to  be  received  into  the  service,  not  to  be  excused  from 
it.  Individuals  from  the  plough,  the  counting-house,  the  law- 
office,  and  the  workshop,  have  taken  the  field,  braving  in- 
clement seasons  and  inhospitable  climates  without  a  murmur, 
and,  though  wholly  unused  to  arms,  withstanding  the  most 
destructive  fire,  and  storming  batteries  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet,  with  the  coolness,  intrepidity,  and  spirit  of  veterans. 
I  believe  I  may  safely  say,  there  has  been  no  parallel  to 
these  achievements  by  undisciplined  forces  since  the  French 
revolution.  I  am  not  sure  that  history  can  furnish  a  paral- 
lel. As  to  the  regular  army,  we  always  expect  it  to  be 
gallant  and  heroic,  and  we  are  never  disappointed.  The 
whole  conduct  of  the  war  in  the  field  has  exhibited  the 
highest  evidence  of  our  military  capacity.  It  confirms  an 
opinion  I  have  always  held,  —  that  a  soldier  is  formidable 
in  ratio  of  the  importance  he  possesses  in  the  order  of  the 
political  system  of  which  he  is  a  part.  It  establishes  an- 
other position  of  vital  importance  to  us :  that,  under  the 
protection  of   our   militia  system,  the  country  may,  at  the 

sented  himself  at  the  gates  of  the  city  indomitable  courage  of  their  followers, 
of  Mexico,  he  was  at  the  head  of  four  With  half  his  force  left  on  the  battle- 
thousand  of  the  most  warlike  of  the  field  or  in  the  hospital,  and  with  less 
natives,  as  auxiliaries  to  the  band  of  than  six  thousand  men,  after  a  series 
Spaniards  with  which  he  commenced  of  desperate  contests,  he  took  posses- 
his  march  from  Vera  Cruz.  Thus  his  sion  of  the  city  of  Mexico,  containing 
early  successes  were  as  much  the  tri-  nearly  two  hundred  thousand  inhabi- 
umph  of  policy  as  of  arms.  General  tants,  and  defended  by  the  remnant  of 
Scott,  and  the  gallant  band  he  led,  had  an  army  of  more  than  thirty  thousand 
no  such  advantages.  The  whole  popu-  soldiers.  I  confess  I  know  nothing  in 
lation  of  the  country,  from  Vera  Cruz  modern  warfare  which  exceeds  in  brill- 
to  Mexico,  was  united  as  one  man  iancy  the  movements  of  the  American 
against  him,  and  animated  by  the  army  from  the  Gulf  to  the  city  of  Mex- 
fiercest  animosity.  He  was  opposed  ico.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  speak  of 
by  military  forces  armed  like  his  own,  them  in  the  language  of  eulogium. 
often  better  disciplined,  occupying  po-  They  are  not  a  fit  theme  for  such  com- 
sitions  chosen  by  themselves,  strong  raent.  Like  the  achievements  of  Gen- 
by  nature,  and  fortified  according  to  eral  Taylor  and  his  brave  men  on  the 
the  strictest  rules  of  art.  These  ob-  Rio  Grande,  at  Monterey,  and  Buena 
stacles  were  overcome  by  his  skill  as  a  Vista,  the  highest  and  most  appropriate 
tactician,  aided  by  a  corps  of  ofiicers  praise  is  contained  in  the  simplest  state- 
imsurpassed  for  their  knowledge  of  the  ment  of  facts." 
art  of  attack  and  defence,  and  by  the 


£04,  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

termination  of  every  contest,  lay  aside  the  more  massive 
and  burdensome  parts  of  its  armor,  and  become  prepared, 
with  energies  renewed  by  that  very  capacity,  for  succeed- 
ing scenes  of  danger. 

Mr.  President,  the  political  condition  of  Mexico  has  been 
gradually  approaching  a  dissolution  of  all  responsible  gov- 
ernment, and  of  the  civil  order  which  constitutes  her  an 
independent  State.  This  lamentable  situation  is  not  the 
fruit  alone  of  our  military  successes.  The  factions  by  which 
that  country  has  been  distracted,  each  in  turn  gaining  and 
maintaining  a  temporary  ascendency,  and  often  by  brute 
force,  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  social  and  political  disorder 
which  has  reigned  there  for  the  last  twenty  years.  To 
most  of  the  abuses  of  the  old  colonial  system  of  Spain  she 
has  superadded  the  evils  of  an  unstable  and  irresponsible 
government.  The  military  bodies,  which  have  been  the  in- 
struments of  those  who  have  thus  in  succession  gained  a 
brief  and  precarious  control  over  her  affairs,  though  dis- 
persed, still  exist,  ready  to  be  reunited  and  to  renew  the 
anarchy  which  we  have  superseded,  for  the  time  being,  by 
a  military  government.  And  this  brings  me  to  the  first  great 
objection  to  the  proposition  of  withdrawing  our  armies  from 
the  field. 

I  have  already  said  that  no  policy  can  deserve  our  support 
which  does  not  hold  out  the  promise  of  a  durable  peace. 
Nothing  seems  to  me  more  unlikely  to  secure  so  desirable  a 
result  than  an  abandonment  of  Mexico  by  us  at  the  present 
moment  without  a  treaty,  leaving  behind  a  strong  feeling 
of  animosity  towards  us,  with  party-divisions  as  strongly 
marked,  and  political  animosities  as  rancorous,  perhaps,  as 
they  have  been  at  any  former  period.  Even  when  her  capital 
had  fallen,  humbled  and  powerless  as  she  was,  party-leaders, 
instead  of  consulting  for  the  common  good,  were  seen  strug- 
gling with  each  other  for  the  barren  sceptre  of  her  authority. 
Our  retirement  as  enemies  would,  in  all  probability,  be  the 
signal  for  intestine  conflicts  as  desperate  and  sanguinary  as^ 


THE   WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  205 

those  in  which  they  have  been  engaged  with  us,  —  conflicts 
always  the  most  disastrous  for  the  great  body  of  the  Mex- 
ican people,  for,  on  what  side  soever  fortune  turns,  they  are 
certain  to  be  the  victims.  You  know,  sir,  there  are  two 
great  parties  in  Mexico,  (I  pass  by  the  minor  divisions,) 
the  "  federalistas  "  and  "  centralistas."  The  former,  as 
their  name  imports,  are  in  favor  of  the  federative  system ; 
they  are  the  true  republican  party.  With  us,  in  former 
times,  the  terms  "  federal  "  and  "  republican  "  designated 
different  parties;  in  Mexico,  they  are  both  employed  to 
designate  the  friends  of  the  federative  system.  The  cen- 
tralists are  in  favor  of  a  consolidated  government,  republican 
or  monarchical  in  form,  and  are  composed  of  the  army,  the 
clergy,  and  I  suppose  a  small  portion  of  the  population.  I 
believe  our  only  hope  of  obtaining  a  durable  peace  lies  in 
the  firm  establishment  of  the  federal  party  in  power,  —  the 
party  represented  by  Herrera,  Anaya,  Peiia  y  Pefia,  Cum- 
plido,  and  others.  I  understand  Herrera  has  been  elected 
president  of  the  republic ;  and  this  is  certainly  a  favorable 
indication.  But,  unfortunately,  I  fear  this  party  would  not 
succeed  in  maintaining  itself,  if  Mexico  were  left  to  herself 
at  the  present  moment  with  an  embittered  feeling  of  hostility 
towards  us.  The  military  chiefs,  who  control  the  army, 
and  who  might  rally  it  again  for  political  uses,  if  we  were 
to  retire  without  a  treaty,  are  for  the  most  part  enemies  of 
the  federative  system,  and  conservators  of  the  popular  abuses, 
to  which  they  owe  their  wealth  and  importance.  Nothing 
could  be  more  unfortunate  for  Mexico  than  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  these  men  in  power.  It  would  bring  with  it  a 
hopeless  perpetuation  of  the  anarchy  and  oppression  which 
have  given  a  character  to  their  supremacy  in  past  years,  — 
a  supremacy  without  a  prospect  of  amelioration  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  Mexican  people,  —  a  supremacy  of  which  the 
chief  variation  has  been  an  exchange  of  one  military  despot 
for  another. 

Calamitous  as  the  restoration  of  this  party  to  their  former 


206  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


ascendency  would  be  for  Mexico,  it  would  hardly  be  less  s 
for  us.  Relying  on  military  force  for  their  support,  their 
policy  would  be  to  continue  the  war  as  a  pretext  for  main- 
taining the  army  in  full  strength,  or,  at  least,  not  to  termi- 
nate it  till  peace  would  ensure  their  own  supremacy.  It  is 
believed  that  these  considerations  have  been  leading  motives 
in  the  resistance  they  have  opposed  to  us.  It  is  true,  the 
republican  party  has  been  equally  hostile,  so  far  as  external 
indications  show ;  but  the  fact  is  accounted  for  by  their  de- 
sire to  see  the  war  continued  until  the  army  and  its  leaders, 
the  great  enemies  of  the  federative  system,  are  overthrown. 
Undoubtedly  the  obstinate  refusal  of  Mexico  to  make  peace 
may  be  very  properly  referred  to  the  natural  exasperation 
of  every  people  whose  soil  is  invaded ;  but  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  has  been  influenced  in  no  inconsiderable  degree 
by  considerations  growing  out  of  party  divisions,  and  the 
jealousy  and  animosities  to  which  those  divisions  have  given 
rise.  My  confidence  in  our  ability  to  make  an  amicable 
arrangement  with  the  federal  party,  if  it  were  in  undisputed 
possession  of  the  government,  arises  from  the  belief  that 
their  motives  are  honest,  that  they  have  at  heart  the  public 
welfare,  and  that  they  must  see  there  is  no  hope  for  Mexico 
but  in  a  solid  peace  with  us.  My  utter  distrust  of  the  cen- 
tralists arises  from  the  belief  that  their  objects  are  selfish, 
and  that,  to  accomplish  them,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  sac- 
rifice the  liberties  of  the  people  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
country.  But  whether  I  err  in  these  views  or  not,  I  feel 
quite  confident  I  do  not  err  in  believing  that  if  our  armies 
were  to .  be  withdrawn  from  Mexico,  without  a  peace,  the 
flames  of  civil  discord  would  be  rekindled  in  that  unhappy 
country,  and  burn  with  redoubled  violence.  I  should  greatly 
fear  that  the  military  chiefs  would  succeed  in  reestablishing 
their  ascendency,  and  that  no  probable  limit  could  be  as- 
signed to  the  duration  of  the  war.  If  I  am  right,  our  true 
policy  is  to  stand  firm,  and,  if  possible,  united,  until  wiser 
counsels  shall  prevail  in  Mexico,  and  a  disposition  shall 


1 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  207 

shown  to  come  to  an  amicable  arrangement  with  us  oti  rear 
sonable  terms. 

The  objection  I  have  stated  to  the  proposition  of  with- 
drawing our  forces  from  Mexico  concerns  only  the  relations 
which  now  exist,  or  may  exist  hereafter,  between  the  two 
countries.  If  there  were  no  other  objection,  the  question 
might  be  decided  upon  considerations  touching  only  their 
domestic  interests  and  their  mutual  rights. 

But  I  come  to  the  second  objection,  —  one  perhaps  of 
graver  import  than  the  first,  because  it  supposes  the  possi- 
bility, if  not  the  probability,  of  an  interference  in  her  affairs 
by  other  countries,  if  we  were  to  retire  without  a  treaty  and 
without  commercial  arrangements  which  it  would  be  in  our 
power  to  enforce.  The  President  alluded  to  the  subject  in 
his  annual  message  at  the  opening  of  Congress,  and  ex- 
pressed an  apprehension  of  danger  from  that  source.  I  par- 
ticipate in  it.  I  shall  assign  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests ; 
and  I  only  regret  that,  in  stating  them  with  the  minuteness 
necessary  to  make  them  fully  understood,  I  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  draw  much  more  largely  than  I  desire  on  the 
patience  of  the  Senate. 

Senators  are  doubtless  aware  that  the  right  of  interven- 
tion in  the  affairs  of  this  continent  was  formally  asserted  in 
the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in  the  year  1845,  by  M. 
Guizot,  Minister  of  foreign  affairs,  as  the  organ  of  the 
government  of  France.  He  regarded  the  great  powers  on 
this  continent  as  divided  into  three  groups,  namely.  Great 
Britain,  the  United  States,  and  the  states  of  Spanish  origin ; 
and  he  declared  that  it  belonged  to  France  "  to  protect,  by 
the  authority  of  her  name,  the  independence  of  states,  and 
the  equilibrium  of  the  great  political  forces  in  America." 
To  this  declaration,  I  have  thought  it  not  out  of  place,  in 
connection  with  the  subject  under  discussion,  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Senate ;  not  for  the  purpose  of  undertaking 
the  formal  refutation, —  of  which  I  think  the  whole  doctrine 
of  intervention,  as  it  has  been  practically  enforced  in  Europe, 


£08  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

is  clearly  susceptible,  —  but  for  the  purpose  of  denying  it  as 
founded  upon  any  well-established  principles  of  international 
law,  and,  if  it  had  such  a  foundation,  of  denying  its  applicabil- 
ity to  the  political  condition  of  this  continent.  To  enter  fully 
into  the  examination  of  this  important  subject  would  require 
more  time  than  it  would  be  proper  for  me  to  devote  to  it. 
I  propose  only  to  pass  rapidly  over  a  few  of  the  principal 
considerations  it  suggests. 

The  declaration  of  M.  Guizot  was  the  first  public  and 
official  intimation,  by  a  European  government,  of  an  in- 
tention to  interfere  with  the  political  condition  of  the  inde- 
pendent communities  on  the  continent  of  America,  and  to 
influence  by  moral,  if  not  by  physical  agencies,  their  relations 
to  each  other.  And  if  it  had  been  presented  in  any  other 
form  than  that  of  an  abstract  declaration,  not  necessarily  to 
be  followed  by  any  overt  act,  it  would  have  behooved  us  to 
inquire,  in  the  most  formal  manner,  whether  this  asserted 
right  of  interposition  derived  any  justification  from  the 
usages  of  nations,  or  from  the  recognized  principles  of  in- 
ternational law ;  or  whether  it  was  not  an  assumption  wholly 
unsupported  by  authority,  and  an  encroachment  on  the  inde- 
pendence of  sovereign  states,  which  it  would  have  been  their 
duty  to  themselves  and  the  civilized  world  to  resent  as  an 
injury  and  a  wrong. 

Am  I  in  error  in  supposing  this  subject  derives  new  im- 
portance from  our  existing  relations  with  Mexico,  one  of  the 
states  of  Spanish  origin,  which  M.  Guizot  grouped  together 
as  constituting  one  of  the  great  political  forces  of  this  con- 
tinent, among  which  the  "  equilibrium "  was  to  be  main- 
tained '?  Sir,  more  than  once,  in  the  progress  of  the  war, 
the  governments  of  Europe  have  been  invoked,  by  leading 
organs  of  public  opinion  abroad,  to  interpose  between  us 
and  Mexico.  Is  it  not,  then,  appropriate  briefly  to  state 
what  this  right  of  intervention  is,  as  it  has  been  asserted  in 
Europe,  what  it  has  been  in  practice,  and  what  it  would  be 
likely  to  become,  if  applied  to  the  states  of  this  continent  ? 
I  trust  it  will  be  so  considered.  « 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  gQQ 

The  doctrine  of  intervention,  to  maintain  the  balance  of 
power,  is  essentially  of  modern  origin.  From  the  earliest 
ages,  it  is  true,  occasional  combinations  have  been  formed 
by  particular  states  for  mutual  protection  against  the  ag- 
gressions of  a  powerful  neighbor.  History  is  full  of  these 
examples.  Such  a  cooperation  is  dictated  by  the  plainest 
principles  of  self-preservation,  for  the  purpose  of  guarding 
against  the  danger  of  being  destroyed  in  detail;  and  it  is 
founded  upon  such  obvious  maxims  of  common  sense,  that 
it  would  have  been  remarkable  if  it  had  not  been  resorted 
to  from  the  moment  human  society  assumed  a  regular  form 
of  organization.  These  defensive  alliances  were  deficient 
in  the  permanence  and  methodical  arrangements  which  dis- 
tinguish the  modern  system  of  intervention.  Hume  saw,  or 
fancied  he  saw,  in  them  the  principle  of  the  right  of  inter- 
vention to  preserve  the  balance  of  power  which  is  asserted 
at  the  present  day.  But  it  could  only  have  been  the  prin- 
ciple which  was  developed  ;  they  certainly  never  attained  the 
maturity  or  the  efficient  force  of  a  regular  system. 

The  modern  doctrine  of  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  other 
states,  which  has  sprung  up  within  the  last  two  centuries,  is 
far  more  comprehensive  in  its  scope.  It  has  grown  into  a 
practical  system  of  supervision  on  the  part  of  the  principal 
European  powers  over  their  own  relative  forces  and  those  of 
the  other  states  of  Europe  ;  and  though  it  may,  in  some 
instances,  have  been  productive  of  beneficial  effects  in  main- 
taining the  public  tranquillity,  it  has  as  frequently  been  an 
instrument  of  the  grossest  injustice  and  tyranny.  From  the 
first  extensive  coalition  of  this  nature,  which  was  formed 
during  the  long  series  of  wars  terminated  by  the  peace  of 
Westphalia,  in  1648,  down  to  the  interference  of  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Austria,  and  France,  in  the  contest  between 
the  Sultan  and  Mehemet  Ali,  in  1840,  a  period  of  nearly 
two  centuries,  —  an  interference  designed,  in  some  degree, 
to  prevent  what  was  regarded  as  a  dangerous  protectorate 
over  the  affairs  of  the  Porte  by  Russia,  —  the  exercise  of 

27 


£10 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


the  right  has  been  placed,  theoretically,  on  the  same  higl 
ground  of  regard  for  the  tranquillity  of  Europe  and  the  ini 
dependence  of  states.  Practically,  it  has  often  been  perJ 
verted  to  the  worst  purposes  of  aggrandizement  and  cupidityl 

If  we  look  into  the  writers  on  international  law,  I  thin] 
we  shall  find  no  sufficient  ground  for  the  right  of  interved 
tion.     Grotius,  who  wrote  in  the  early  part  of  the  seven| 
teenth  century,  denied  its  existence.      Fenelon,  who  wrot 
about  half  a  century  later,  denied  it,  except  as  a  means  oi 
self-preservation,  and  then  only  when  the  danger  was  rej 
and  imminent.     Vattel,  who  wrote  nearly  a  century  afte 
Fenelon,  and  a  century  before  our  own  times,  regarded  tb< 
states    of   Europe    as   forming   a  political   system,   and    h< 
restricted  the  right  of  entering  into  confederacies  and  alli^ 
ances  for  the  purpose  of  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  eacl 
other  to  cases  in  which  such  combinations  were  necessary 
curb  the  ambition  of  any  power,  which,  from  its  superiorit] 
in  physical  strength,  and  its  designs  of  oppression  or  con^ 
quest,  threatened  to    become    dangerous   to   its    neighbors 
De  Martens,  who  wrote  half  a  century  ago,  acknowledges 
with  Vattel,  the  existence  of  the  right  under  certain  condi^ 
tions,  though  he  hardly  admits  it  to  be  well  settled  as  a  ruh 
of  international  law ;  and  he  limits  its  exercise  to  neighbor^ 
ing  states,   or   states    occupying   the   same  quarter   of  th« 
globe.      But,  according  to  the  last  two  writers,  who  hav( 
perhaps   gone   as  far  as  any  other   public  jurists,  of  equj 
eminence,  towards  a  formal  recognition  of  the  right,  it  onh 
justifies  a  union  of  inferior  states  within  the  same  immc 
diate  sphere  of  action,  to  prevent  an  accumulation  of  powe^ 
in  the  hands  of  a  single  sovereign  which  would  be  too  gre£ 
for  the  common  liberty. 

I  am  confident,  Mr.  President,  that  no  one  can  rise  froi 
a  review  of  the  history  of  modern  Europe,  and  from  an  ei 
amination  of  the  writings  of  her  public  jurists,  without  bein| 
satisfied  that  the  right  of  intervention,  as  recognized  by  civj 
ilized  nations,  is  what  I  have  stated  it  to  be,  —  a  mere  rightJ 


THE  WAR  WITH   MEXICO.  21 1 

on  the  part  of  weaker  states,  to  combine  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  the  subversion  of  their  independence,  and  the 
alienation  of  their  territories,  by  a  designing  and  powerful 
neighbor;  a  right  to  be  exercised  only  in  cases  of  urgent 
and  immediate  danger.  It  is  simply  a  right  of  self-preser- 
vation, undefined,  undefinable,  having  no  settled  or  permanent 
foundation  in  public  law,  to  be  asserted  only  in  extreme  ne- 
cessity, and,  when  arbitrarily  applied  to  practice,  a  most  fruit- 
ful source  of  abuse,  injustice,  and  oppression.  One  clear  and 
certain  limitation  it  happily  possesses,  —  a  limitation  which, 
amid  all  its  encroachments  upon  the  independence  of  sover- 
eign states,  has  never  until  our  day  been  overpassed.  By 
universal  consent,  by  the  unvarying  testimony  of  abuse  itself, 
it  is  not  to  be  exercised  beyond  the  immediate  sphere  of  the 
nations  concerned.  It  pertains  rigidly  and  exclusively  to 
states  within  the  same  circle  of  political  action.  It  is  only 
by  neighbors,  for  the  protection  of  neighbors  against  neigh- 
bors, that  it  can,  even  upon  the  broadest  principles,  be  right- 
fully employed.  When  it  traverses  oceans,  and  looks  to  the 
regulation  of  the  political  concerns  of  other  continents,  it 
becomes  a  gigantic  assumption,  which,  for  the  independence 
of  nations,  for  the  interests  of  humanity,  for  the  tranquillity 
of  the  old  world  and  the  new,  should  be  significantly  re- 
pelled. 

Mr.  President,  a  review  of  the  history  of  Europe  during 
the  last  two  centuries  will  bring  with  it  another  conviction  in 
respect  to  the  right  of  intervention,  —  that  no  reliance  can 
be  placed  on  its  restriction  in  practice  to  the  objects  to  which 
it  is  limited  by  every  public  jurist  who  admits  its  existence 
at  all ;  and  that  nothing  could  be  so  discouraging  to  the 
friends  of  free  government  as  an  extension  of  the  system  to 
this  continent,  if  the  power  existed  to  introduce  it  here. 
Though  the  combinations  it  is  claimed  to  authorize  may,  in 
some  instances,  have  protected  the  coalescing  parties  from 
the  danger  of  being  overrun  by  conquering  armies,  the  cases 
are  perhaps  as  numerous  in  which  their  interposition  has 


212  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

been  lent  to  break  down  the  independence  of  states,  and  ti 
throw  whole  communities  of  men  into  the  arms  of  goveri 
ments   to  which    their    feelings    and    principles   were   alik^ 
averse.     The  right,  as  has  been  seen,  (and  it  cannot  be  tc 
often  repeated,)  with  the  utmost  latitude  claimed  for  it  b] 
any  public  jurist,  goes  no  further  than  to  authorize  a  leaguj 
on  the  part  of  two  or  more  weaker  states  to  protect  thei 
selves  against  the   designs   of  an   ambitious  and  powerfij 
neighbor.     In  its  practical  application,  it  has  more  frequent!] 
resulted  in  a  combination  of  powerful  states  to  destroy  theii 
weaker  neighbors,  for  the  augmentation  of  their  own  domii 
ions  or  those  of  their  allies.     From  a  mere  right  to  combii 
for  self-preservation,  they  have  made  it  in  practice  a  right 
divide,  dismember,  and  partition  states  at  their  pleasure, 
not  for  the  purpose  of  diminishing  the  strength  of  a  po^ 
erful  adversary,  —  but  under  the  pretence  of  creating  a  sys 
tem  of  balances,  which  is  artificial  in  its  structure,  and,  if 
some  degree,  incongruous  in  its  elements,  and  which  a  singk 
political  convulsion  may  overturn  and  destroy.      Do  we  need 
examples  of  the  abuse  of  the  power,  —  I  will  not  call  it  a 
right]  They  will  be  found  in  the  dismemberment  of  Saxony, 
the  annexation  of  the  republic  of  Genoa  to  the  kingdom  of 
Sardinia,  and  the  absorption  of  Venice  by  Austria.     There 
is  another  and  a  more  aggravated  case  of  abuse  to  which 
recent  events  have  given  new  prominence.    In  177^5  Russia, 
Prussia,  and  Austria,  under  the  pretence  that  the  disturbed 
condition  of  Poland  was  dangerous  to  their  own  tranquillity, 
seized  upon  about  one  third  of  her  territories,  and  divided  it 
among  themselves.    In  1793,  notwithstanding  her  diminished 
proportions,  she  had  become  more  dangerous,  and  they  seized 
half  of  what  they  had  left  to  her  by  the  first  partition.     Sir, 
she  continued  to  grow  dangerous  as  she  grew  weak  ;  and  in 
two  years  after  the  second  partition,  they  stripped  her  of  all 
that  remained.      In  1815,  the  five  great  powers,  at  the  Con- 
gress of  Vienna,  from  motives  of  policy,  and  not  from  a 
returning  sense  of  justice,  organized  the  city  of  Cracow  and 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  218 

a  portion  of  the  surrounding  territory,  with  a  population  of 
about  one  hundred  thousand  souls,  into  a  republic,  under  the 
protection  of  Austria,  Russia,  and  Prussia,  with  a  guaranty 
of  its  independence  in  perpetuity.  Russia  pledged  herself, 
at  the  same  time,  to  maintain  her  share  of  the  spoil  as  the 
kingdom  of  Poland  in  name  and  form,  with  a  constitutional 
government.  At  the  end  of  seventeen  years,  in  violation  of 
her  pledge,  she  virtually  incorporated  it,  as  an  integral  part, 
into  the  Russian  empire.  The  little  republic  of  Cracow  was 
all  that  remained  as  a  monument  of  the  dismembered  king- 
dom. A  year  ago,  it  was  obliterated  as  an  independent  state 
by  the  three  great  powers  of  eastern  and  northern  Europe, 
in  violation  of  their  solemn  guaranty,  and  assigned  to  Aus- 
tria. The  name  of  Poland,  the  fountain  of  so  many  noble 
and  animating  recollections,  is  no  longer  to  be  found  on 
the  map  of  Europe.  The  three  quarters  of  a  century  which 
intervened  from  the  inception  to  the  consummation  of  this 
transaction  are  not  sufficient  to  conceal  or  even  to  obscure 
its  true  character.  The  very  magnitude  of  the  space  over 
which  it  is  spread  only  serves  to  bring  it  out  in  bolder  and 
darker  relief  from  the  pages  of  history. 

If  the  United  States,  in  the  progress  of  these  usurpa- 
tions, have  not  remonstrated  against  them,  and  contributed 
by  her  interposition  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  states 
thus  disorganized  and  dismembered  in  violation  of  every  rule 
of  right,  and  every  suggestion  of  justice  and  humanity,  it  is 
because  we  have  been  faithful,  against  all  movements  of  sym- 
pathy, against  the  very  instincts  of  nature,  to  the  principle 
of  abstaining  from  all  interference  with  the  movements  of 
European  powers  relating  exclusively  to  the  condition  of 
the  quarter  of  the  globe  to  which  they  belong.  But  when 
it  is  proposed  or  threatened  to  extend  to  this  continent  and 
to  ourselves  a  similar  system  of  balances,  with  all  its  danger 
of  abuse  and  usurpation,  I  hold  it  to  be  our  duty  to  inquire 
on  what  grounds  it  rests,  that  we  may  be  prepared  to  resist 
all  practical  application  of  it  to  the  independent  states  in  this 
hemisphere. 


£14  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


Mr.  President,  the  declaration  of  M.  Guizot  could  hardly 
have  been  made  without  the  previous  approbation  of  the 
government  of  which  he  was  the  organ.  The  same  sover- 
eign occupies  the  throne  of  France,  —  the  same  minister 
stands  before  it  as  the  exponent  of  his  opinions.  Is  the 
declaration  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  idle  annunciation  in 
words  of  a  design  never  intended  to  be  carried  into  practice] 
Let  me  answer  the  question  by  the  briefest  possible  reference 
to  circumstances.  France  was  the  coadjutor  of  England  in 
the  attempt  to  induce  Texas  to  decline  annexation  to  the 
Union.  Failing  in  this,  she  attempted  to  accomplish  the 
same  object  indirectly,  by  persuading  Mexico  to  recognize 
the  independence  of  Texas,  on  condition  that  the  latter 
should  remain  an  independent  state.  These  terms  were 
offered  to  Texas,  and  rejected.  In  the  year  1844<,  I  believe 
less  than  twelve  months  before  M.  Guizot's  declaration  was 
made,  (and  the  coincidence  in  point  of  time  is  remarkable,) 
a  book  on  Oregon  and  California  was  published  in  Paris  by 
order  of  the  King  of  France,  under  the  auspices  of  Marshal 
Soult,  President  of  the  Council,  and  M.  Guizot,  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  and  written  by  M.  de  Mofras,  who  was 
attached  to  the  French  legation  in  Mexico.  The  first  part 
of  the  work  is  devoted  to  Mexico,  and  certainly  contains 
some  remarkable  passages.  He  speaks  of  the  establishment 
of  a  European  monarchy  as  a  project  that  had  been  sug- 
gested as  the  only  one  calculated  to  put  an  end  to  the  divis- 
ions and  annihilate  the  factions  which  desolated  that  beautiful 
country.^    He  says,  the  Catholic  religion  and  family  relations 

^  1  The  day  after  this  speech  was  de-  M.  Guizot's  declaration  was  made,  and 

lirered,  Mr.  Dix  received  from  a  friend  two  years  after  M.  de  Mofras's  book  was 

in  New  York,  who  could  have  had  no  published,  large  sums  were  expended 

knowledge  of  his  intention  to  speak,  by  Spain  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 

much  less  of  the  topics  he  designed  to  a  monarchy  in  Mexico,  and  of  placing 

discuss,  a  translation  from  a  speech  de-  a  Spanish  prince  on  the  throne.     The 

livered  to  the  Cortes  of  Spain  on  the  close  connection  of  the  governments  of  ^ 

1st  of  December,  1847,  by  Senor  Olo-  France  and  Spain,  by  the  marriage  of 

zoga,  a  man  of  distinction,  and  sup-  the  Duke  of  Montpensier,  the  son  of 

posed  to  be  the  same  individual  who  Louis  Philippe,  to  the  sister  of  Queenl 

was  a  few  years  since  first  minister  of  Isabella,  gives  additional  importance 

the  crown.     By  this  speech  it  appears  these  developments  :  — 

that,  as  recently  as  1846,  a  year  after  "  No  one,  either  on  this  floor  or  else 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  213 

with  the  ancient  possessors  of  the  country  would  he  the  first 
conditions  required  of  the  princes  who  should  be  called  to 
reconstruct  there  a  monarchical  government.  He  then 
adds : — 

"The  infantas  of  Spain,  the  French  princes,  and  the  archdukes 
of  Austria,  fulfil  these  conditions,  and  we  may  affirm  that,  from  which- 
ever quarter  a  competitor  should  present  himself,  he  would  be  unani- 
mously welcomed  by  the  Mexican  people. 

"  What,  then,  are  the  interests  of  France  in  these  questions  ? 

"The  establishment  in  Mexico  of  a  monarchy  of  any  description 
whatever,  resting  upon  a  solid  basis,  should  be  the  first  object  of  our 
policy ;  for  we  know  that  the  instability  attached  to  the  actual  form 
of  its  government  brings  with  it  disadvantages  for  our  commerce, 
and  inconveniences  for  our  people." 

He  adds,  that  if  Mexico  is  to  preserve  her  republican  form 
of  government,  her  incorporation  into  the  Union  of  the 
North  would  seem  more  favorable  to  France  than  her  exist- 
ing condition,  on  account  of  the  development  of  commerce 
and  all  the  guaranties  of  liberty,  security,  and  justice,  which 
his  compatriots  would  enjoy ;  and  that  England  would  lose, 
under  such  an  order  of  things,  what  France  would  gain. 
Thus,  though  the  dismemberment  and  absorption  of  Mexico 

where,  can  deny  that  the  project  has  minister  plenipotentiary  of  her  Majesty 
been  entertained  of  establishing  a  mon-  in  Mexico  for  matters  belonging  to  the 
archy  in  Mexico,  and  to  place  a  Span-  service,  $100,000.'  But  much  greater 
ish  prince  on  the  throne.  This  project,  than  this  was  the  authority  our  minis- 
conceived  in  the  time  of  the  Conde  ter  in  Mexico  possessed  for  disposing 
Aranda,  would  have  saved  our  colonies  of  the  public  funds.  I  do  not  know 
from  the  sad  fate  they  have  sulfered ;  whether  he  has  made  use  of  it.  I  do 
but  brought  forward  on  this  occasion,  not  even  know  his  name.  I  suppose 
it  was  the  most  absurd  idea  that  could  he  will  employ  them  with  scrupulous 
have  been  conceived.  But  we  have  not  honesty  ;  but  is  the  Spanish  people  so 
only  to  deplore  having  excited  political  bountifully  supplied  with  millions  that 
animosities  and  the  consequences  this  they  can  afibrd  to  send  them  to  the 
has  produced  in  that  country,  we  have  New  World,  for  the  purpose  of  sustain- 
also  to  lament  the  money  lost  and  ing  political  intrigues  in  that  distant 
thrown  away  upon  Mexican  soil.  And  region  1  How  many  meritorious  mili- 
in  order  that  the  Cortes  may  not  be-  tary  men,  who  have  shed  their  blood 
heve  I  am  about  to  make  accusations  for  the  good  of  their  country,  and  whose 
of  so  grave  a  character  without  possess-  means  of  support  have  been  cut  down 
ing  proofs  to  corroborate  them,  I  now  to  the  lowest  possible  point,  might  have 
hold  in  my  hand  a  statement  of  the  been  aided  by  these  large  sums  1  How- 
sums  expended  and  drawn  from  the  much  misery  might  have  been  allevi- 
treasury  in  Havana  in  the  year  1846,  ated  by  the  money  which  has  been 
signed  by  the  Senor  Navarro  as  audi-  thrown  away  in  this  manner  ?  And 
tor,  and  Mugica  as  treasurer.  In  this  where  do  they  find  authority  for  squan- 
statement  there  is  an  item  which  says  :  dering  millions  to  foster  foreign  in- 
*  Paid  bills  of  exchange  remitted  by  the  trigues  1 " 


£16  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

by  the  United  States  are  regarded  by  M.  de  Mofras  as 
preferable  to  the  commercial  monopoly  and  the  "  species  of 
political  sovereignty,"  as  he  denominates  it,  which  England 
has  exercised  in  that  country,  the  first  object  of  France, 
according  to  him,  should  be  a  reconstruction  of  monarchy 
in  Mexico,  with  a  foreign  prince  on  the  throne,  and  this 
prince  from  some  branch  of  the  Bourbon  family.  The  opin- 
ions contained  in  this  book  are  not  put  forth  as  the  mere 
speculations  of  a  private  person.  They  are  the  opinions  of 
an  agent  of  the  government :  the  publication  is  made  by 
order  of  the  king,  and  under  the  auspices  of  his  two  chief 
ministers,  and  so  stated  in  the  title-page.  I  do  not  mean 
to  hold  the  government  of  France  responsible  for  all  the 
opinions  contained  in  that  work ;  but  can  we  believe  that 
those  I  have  quoted,  concerning  as  they  do  so  grave  a  sub- 
ject as  the  international  relations  of  France  with  Mexico, 
and  of  Mexico  with  the  United  States,  would  have  been  put 
forth  without  modification  under  such  high  official  sanctions, 
if  they  had  been  viewed  with  positive  disfavor  1  It  appears 
to  me  that  we  are  constrained  to  view  them,  like  the  decla- 
ration of  M.  Guizot,  though  certainly  to  a  very  inferioi 
extent,  as  possessing  an  official  character  which  we  are  not 
at  liberty  wholly  to  disregard,  when  we  consider  the  one  ii 
connection  with  the  other. 

And  now,  sir,  I  ask,  do  not  these  opinions  and  declan 
tions,  especially  when  we  look  to  the  open  and  direct  inter-^ 
ference  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  by  force  of  arms,  ii 
the  domestic  affairs  of  some  of  the  South  American  republics 
within  the  last  two  years,  furnish  a  just  ground  of  appn 
hension,  if  we  should  retire  from  Mexico  without  a  treat] 
and  as  enemies,  that  it  might  become  a  theatre  for  the  exer- 
cise  of   influences  of  a   most   unfriendly  character   to   us 
With   the   aid  of  the  monarchical  party  in  Mexico,  woul< 
there  not  be  danger  that  the  avowed  design  of  establishing 
throne  might  be  realized]    The  chances  of  open  interposi- 
tion are  unquestionably  diminished  by  the  results  of  the  war  ;j 


THE   WAR  WITH  MEXICO. 


£17 


but  I  am  constrained  to  believe  the  chances  of  secret  inter- 
ference are  increased  by  the  avidity  imputed  to  us  for  terri- 
torial extension.  Ought  not  this  danger  to  influence,  to 
some  extent,  our  own  conduct,  at  least  so  far  as  to  dissuade 
us  from  abandoning,  until  a  better  prospect  of  a  durable 
peace  shall  exist,  the  advantage  we  have  gained  as  belliger- 
ents? We  know,  a  great  majority  of  the  Mexican  people 
are  radically  averse  to  any  other  than  a  republican  form  of 
government;  but  we  know,  also,  the  proneness  of  a  people 
among  whom  anarchy  reigns  triumphant,  to  seek  any  refuge 
which  promises  the  restoration  of  tranquillity  and  social 
order. 

Mr.  President,  any  attempt  by  a  European  power  to 
interpose  in  the  affairs  of  Mexico,  either  to  establish  a 
monarchy,  or  to  maintain,  in  the  language  of  M.  Guizot, 
"  the  equilibrium  of  the  great  political  forces  in  America," 
would  be  the  signal  for  a  war  far  more  important  in  its 
consequences,  and  inscrutable  in  its  issues,  than  this.  We 
could  not  submit  to  such  interposition  if  we  would.  The 
public  opinion  of  the  country  would  compel  us  to  resist  it: 
We  are  committed  by  the  most  formal  declarations,  first 
made  by  President  Monroe  in  18£8,  and  repeated  by  the 
present  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  Union.  We  have  pro- 
tested, in  the  most  solemn  manner,  against  any  further 
colonization  by  European  powers  on  this  continent.  We 
have  protested  against  any  interference  in  the  political  con- 
cerns of  the  independent  states  in  this  hemisphere.  A  pro- 
test, it  is  true,  does  not  imply  that  the  ground  it  assumes  is 
to  be  maintained  at  all  hazards,  and,  if  necessary,  by  force 
of  arms.  Great  Britain  protested  against  the  interference 
of  France  in  the  affairs  of  Spain  in  1S2S ;  she  has  more 
recently  protested  against  the  absorption  of  Cracow  by 
Austria  as  a  violation  of  the  political  order  of  Europe, 
settled  at  Vienna  by  the  allied  sovereigns,  and  against  the 
Montpensier  marriage  as  a  violation  of  the  treaty  of 
Utrecht ;  but  I  do  not  remember  that  in  either  case  she  did 

28 


gl8  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


anything  more    than  to  proclaim   to  the  world  her  dissent 
from  the  acts  against  which  she  entered  her  protest.     It  has 
always  seemed  to  me  to  be  unwise  in  a  government  to  put 
forth  manifestoes  without  being  prepared  to  maintain  them 
by  acts,  or  to  make  declarations  of  abstract  principle  until 
the  occasion  has  arrived  for  enforcing  them.     The  declara- 
tions of  a  President,  having  no  power  to  make  war  withou 
a  vote  of  Congress,  or  even  to  employ  the  military  force  o 
the  country  except  to  defend  our  own  territory,  is  very  di 
ferent  from  the  protest  of  a  sovereign  holding  the  issues  o: 
peace  and  war  in  his  own  hands.     But  the  former  may  n 
be  less  effectual  when  they  are  sustained,  as  I  believe  tho: 
of  Presidents  Monroe  and  Polk  are,  in  respect  to  European 
interference    on    the  American    continent,  by  an    undivided 
public  opinion,  even  though  they  may  not  have  received  a 
formal  response  from  Congress.      I  hold,  therefore,  if  an 
such  interposition  as  that  to  which  I  have  referred  shoul 
take  place,  resistance  on  our  part  would  inevitably  folio 
and  we  should  become    involved  in  controversies  of  whid 
no  man  could  foresee  the  end. 

Before  I  quit  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  desire  to  adve: 
to  some  circumstances  recently  made   public,   and,  if  true^ 
indicating  significantly  the  extent  to  which  Great  Britain  is 
disposed  to  carry  her  other  encroachments  on  this  continent, 
as  in  every  other  quarter  of  the  globe.     On   the  coast  of 
Honduras,  in  Central  America,  commonly  called  the  Mos- 
quito coast,  there   is  a  tribe  of  Indians   bearing  the   same 
name,  numbering  but  a  few  hundred  individuals,  and   in- 
habiting some   miserable  villages   in   the   neighborhood   of 
Cape  Gracias  a  Dios,  near  the   fifteenth  parallel  of  north 
latitude.      Several    hundred    miles   south  is   the   river   San 
Juan,  running  from  Lake  Nicaragua  to  the  Caribbean  se 
a  space  of  about  two  degrees  of  longitude,  with  the  town 
Nicaragua  at  its  mouth,  and  a  castle  or  fort  about  midwa 
between  the  town    and  the  lake.     The   lake   is  only  fifteei 
leagues  from  the  Pacific,  and  constitutes,  with  the  river  S 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  gjg 

Juan,  one  of  the  proposed  lines  for  a  ship-canal  across  the 
Isthmus.  Great  Britain  has  recently  laid  claim  to  the  river 
San  Juan  and  the  town  of  Nicaragua,  if  she  has  not  act- 
ually taken  possession  of  the  latter.  I  have  seen  a  com- 
munication from  the  British  consul-general  at  Guatemala, 
asserting  the  independence  of  the  Mosquitoes  as  a  nation.  I 
have  also  seen  a  communication  from  the  British  consul  at 
Bluefield,  on  the  Mosquito  shore,  asserting  that  "  the  Mos- 
quito flag  and  nation  are  under  the  special  protection  of  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain,"  and  that  "  the  limits  which  the 
British  government  is  determined  to  maintain  as  the  right 
of  the  king  of  the  Mosquitoes  "  "  comprehend  the  San  Juan 
river."  By  Arrowsmith's  London  Atks,  published  in  184«0, 
the  Mosquito  territory  covered  about  40,000  square  miles, 
nearly  as  large  an  area  as  that  of  the  state  of  New  York ; 
but  it  did  not  extend  below  the  twelfth  parallel  of  latitude, 
while  the  river  San  Juan  is  on  the  eleventh.  I  have  seen 
the  protest  of  the  state  of  Nicaragua  against  the  occupation 
of  the  town  of  Nicaragua  on  the  river  San  Juan,  which,  as 
the  protest  declares,  has  been  from  time  immemorial  in  her 
quiet  and  peaceable  possession.  The  state  of  San  Salvador, 
one  of  the  Central  American  republics,  also  unites  in  the  pro- 
test, and  declares  her  determination,  if  the  outrage  shall  be 
carried  into  effect,  to  exert  her  whole  power  until  the  usurper 
"  shall  be  driven  from  the  limits  of  Central  America." 

I  understand,  for  I  speak  only  from  information,  that 
Great  Britain  has  for  some  time  claimed  to  have  had  the 
Mosquitoes,  a  mere  naked  tribe  of  Indians  of  a  few  hundred 
persons,  under  her  protection.^  Through  her  influence,  they 
appointed  a  king,  who  was  taken  to  Balize,  a  British  station 

1  Extract  of  a  Letter  from  the  Supreme  one  of  her  feet  upon  the  Atlantic  coast 

Gocernment  of  the  State  of  Nicaragua  of  this   State  ;   or  rather,  for  the  pur- 

to  thr  Supreme  Government  of  the  State  pose  of  taking  possession  of  the  port 

of  San  Salvador.  for   communication    between    Europe, 

"  A  tribe  with  no  recognized  form  of  America,  and  Asia,  and  other   impor- 

government,  without  civilization,  and  tant  countries  at  the  point  where  the 

entirely  abandoned  to  savage   life,  is  grand  inter-oceanic  canal  is  most  prac- 

Buddenly  made  use  of  by  enlightened  ticable." 

England  for  the  purpose  of  planting 


2£0 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


on  the  bay  of  Yucatan,  and  there  crowned.     It  is  said,  als< 
that,    on  the  decease  of   the    king,   he  was  found  to   have 
bequeathed    his    dominions  to    her    Britannic    Majesty.     Il 
appears  to  be  certain  that  she  has,  under  this  pretence  oi 
protection,  extended  her  dominion  over  an  immense  surfac 
in  Central  America ;  that  she  has  at  least  one  vessel  of  wai 
the  Sun,  commanded  by  an  officer  bearing  an  English  name! 
"  Commander    Trotter,   of   the    Mosquito   navy,"   as    he  U 
styled  in  a  letter  written  by  the  British  consul  at  Bluefield 
and  that  she  is  still  further  extending  herself,  against  th« 
remonstrance  of  the  Central  x\merican  states.      But  thej 
states,  besides  being  physically  weak,  are  distracted  by  in^ 
ternal  feuds ;  and  if  the  proceedings  complained  of  be  not 
the  unauthorized  acts  of  British  agents,  which  Great  Britaii 
will  disavow,  it  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that  a  usurpation^ 
so  unjustifiably  consummated,  will  be  abandoned  on  an  aj 
peal  to  the  justice  of  the  wrong-doer.     Whether  our  govl 
ernment    should  remain  quiescent  under  this  encroachment 
upon  near  and  defenceless  neighbors,  is  a  question  worthy  oi 
consideration.     Under    any  circumstances,  it  seems  to  me 
to  afford  little  assurance  of  non-interference  with  the  affaii 
of  Mexico,  if  our  forces  were  to  be  withdrawn  without 
treaty. 

There  is  another    consideration  which  ought    not   to 
overlooked.     In  July  last,  Lord  George  Bentinck  made 
motion  for  an  address  to  her  Britannic  Majesty,  praying  hel 
to  take  such  measures  as  she  might  deem  proper  to  securl 
the    payment  of   the    Spanish  government    bonds   held   bi 
British  subjects.     Those  bonds  amount  to  about  three  hui 
dred  and  eighty  millions  of  dollars,  and  on  about  three  hui 
dred  and  forty  millions  no  interest  whatever  has  been  paid 
and,  including  this  debt,  nearly  seven  hundred  and  thirty  milj 
lions  of  dollars  are  due  to  British  subjects  by  foreign  govl 
ernments,  —  a  sum  equal  to  about  one  fifth  of  her  nationj 
debt.     He    contended,  that,  "by  the  law  of  nations,  froi 
time  immemorial,  it  has  been  held  that  the  recovery  of  jus 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  £*21 

debts  is  a  lawful  cause  of  war,  if  the  country  from  which 
payment  is  due  refuses  to  listen  to  the  claims  of  the  country 
to  whom  money  is  owing."  He  quoted  authorities  to  show 
that  the  payment  of  the  debt,  or  the  interest  on  it,  might  be 
enforced  without  having  recourse  to  arms,  though  asserting 
the  right  to  resort  to  force  to  compel  it.  He  referred  to  the 
rich  colonies  of  Spain,  and  especially  Cuba,  to  show  that 
there  was  wealth  enough  in  its  annual  produce  and  revenue 
"  to  pay  the  whole  debt  due  by  Spain  to  British  bond- 
holders." He  referred  to  the  naval  force  which  Spain  pos- 
sessed, to  show  that  there  would  not  be  ''  any  very  effective 
resistance,"  and  that  "  the  most  timid  minister  "  need  not 
fear  it.  Having,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  called  the 
attention  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  the  subject, 
Lord  Palmerston,  in  responding  to  his  call,  entered  into  an 
extended  statement  in  respect  to  the  foreign  debt  due  to 
British  subjects.  He  drew  distinctions  between  transac- 
tions by  one  government  with  another,  by  British  subjects 
with  a  foreign  government,  by  British  subjects  with  the  sub- 
jects of  another  government,  and  between  debts  and  acts  of 
injustice  and  oppression.  These  distinctions,  however,  he 
treated  as  matters  of  expediency  and  established  practice. 
He  assented  to  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  the  noble  lord  who 
made  the  motion  for  an  address,  and  he  said,  if  it  were  the 
wise  policy  of  England  to  lay  down  a  rule  that  she  would 
enforce  obligations  of  this  character  with  the  same  rigor  as 
those  of  a  different  character,  she  would  have  a  full  and  fair 
right,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  to  do  so.  And  he 
concluded  by  saying  that  England  had  not  refrained  from 
taking  the  steps  urged  by  his  noble  friend,  because  she  was 
"  afraid  of  these  states,  or  all  of  them  put  together  " ;  that 
it  was  not  to  be  supposed  the  British  Parliament,  or  the 
British  nation,  would  long  remain  patient  under  the  wrong, 
and  that  they  had  ample  power  and  means  to  obtain  justice. 
I  pass  over  the  doctrines  put  forth  in  the  speech  of  Lord 
George    Bentinck,   and    sanctioned    by    Lord    Palmerston, 


222  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


1 


though  I  believe  it  not  perfectly  clear  that  they  can  be  main 
tained  to  the  full  extent  by  an  appeal  to  any  well-established 
principles  of  international  law.  You  know,  sir,  that  we 
have  sometimes  found  British  statesmen,  even  those  holding 
places  nearest  to  the  throne,  at  fault,  both  in  respect  to  mat- 
ters of  principle  and  matters  of  fact,  though  it  is  certainly 
but  justice  to  concede  to  them  the  possession  of  more  en- 
larged views  of  policy,  combined  with  greater  practical 
talent  and  tact,  than  is  often  to  be  found  in  the  councils  of 
European  sovereigns.  I  also  pass  over  an  offensive  allusion 
to  the  failure  of  two  or  three  of  the  states  of  this  Union  to 
pay  their  debts,  "  as  a  stain  upon  the  national  character,"  (I 
quote  the  exact  words,)  when  it  is  well  known  that  the  sus- 
pension of  payment  was  temporary,  and  from  overruling 
necessity ;  that  in  most  instances  resumption  has  taken 
place  ;  and  that,  in  all,  the  most  earnest  efforts  have  been 
made  to  resume  the  discharge  of  their  obligations.  This 
imputation  was  cast  upon  us  at  the  moment  when  our  peo- 
ple, with  one  heart,  were  sending  abroad  their  agricultural 
surplus  to  feed  the  famished  population  of  Ireland,  not 
merely  in  the  way  of  commercial  exchange,  but  in  the  form 
of  donations,  in  shiploads,  public  and  private.  And  so  far 
as  the  commercial  portion  is  concerned,  I  believe  our  mer- 
chants have  for  months  been  draining  our  banks  of  specie, 
to  send  abroad  to  meet  their  own  pecuniary  obligations, 
while  for  a  time  at  least  they  were  unable  to  draw  on  their 
debtors  in  England  for  the  proceeds  of  the  breadstuffs  by 
which  her  subjects  had  been  fed.  But  I  pass  by  all  this, 
and  come  to  the  important  fact  that  Mexico  was  among  the 
indebted  foreign  states  enumerated  in  a  report,  on  which  the 
motion  of  Lord  George  Bentinck  was  founded.  What  is 
the  extent  of  her  indebtedness  I  do  not  know,  but  I  under- 
stand about  seventy  millions  of  dollars;  and  I  believe  it 
was  but  recently  that  the  public  domain  in  California  was 
mortgaged  to  the  creditors  for  a  portion  of  this  amount, 
though  the  lien  is  now  said  to  be  discharged. 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  2^3 

I  appeal  to  honorable  Senators  to  say,  with  these  facts 
before  them,  and  in  view  of  this  public  and  official  assertion 
of  a  principle,  which,  according  to  Lord  Palmerston,  the 
British  government  has  only  abstained  from  practically  en- 
forcing through  mere  considerations  of  policy,  whether,  if 
our  forces  were  withdrawn  from  Mexico,  and  that  country 
should  become  a  prey  to  the  anarchy  and  confusion  which 
has  reigned  there  so  long,  and  which,  if  renewed,  would 
in  all  probability  become  universal  and  hopeless,  —  whether, 
I  say,  there  would  not  be  a  temptation  too  strong  to  be  re- 
sisted to  reduce  the  principle  thus  proclaimed  to  practice; 
whether  some  portion  of  the  Mexican  territory  might  not  be 
occupied  as  a  guaranty  for  the  payment  of  the  debt  due  to 
British  subjects,  and  thus  another  principle  be  violated 
which  we  are  committed  to  maintain  1  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  this  consideration,  if  it  stood  alone,  should  abso- 
lutely control  our  conduct.  But  as  auxiliary  to  the  graver 
considerations  to  which  I  have  referred,  it  may  properly  be 
allowed  some  weight,  —  enough,  sir,  perhaps,  to  turn  the 
scale,  if  it  were  already  balanced,  —  though,  I  think,  there  is 
sufficient  without  it  to  incline  us  decisively  to  the  side  of 
continued  occupation. 

Besides,  British  subjects  have  other  extensive  pecuniary 
interests  in  Mexico:  they  have  large  commercial  establish- 
ments, and  heavy  investments  of  capital  in  the  mining  dis- 
tricts. If  the  political  affairs  of  that  country  should  fall 
into  inextricable  confusion,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  these 
great  interests  will  be  abandoned  by  Great  Britain  ;  and  yet 
it  is  extremely  difficult  to  see  by  what  interposition  on  her 
part  they  could  be  secured  without  the  danger  of  collision 
between  her  and  us. 

Mr.  President,  in  what  I  have  said  in  respect  to  the  dan- 
ger of  foreign  interposition,  I  have  not  relied  upon  the 
ephemeral  opinions  of  the  day,  or  on  opinions  expressed  in 
public  journals  abroad,  however  intimately  those  journals 
may  be  supposed  to  be  connected  with  governments,  as  the 


224f  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


organs  of  the  views  which  it  is  deemed  advisable  to  throw 
out,  from  time  to  time,  for  the  public  consideration  or  guid- 
ance. I  have  resorted  to  no  irresponsible  sources.  I  have 
presented  opinions  and  declarations  proclaimed  w4th  more  or 
less  of  official  sanction,  and,  for  the  most  part,  with  the 
highest,  —  I  mean  the  declarations  of  ministers,  speaking  for 
their  governments  to  the  popular  body,  and  as  the  respon- 
sible representatives  of  sovereigns,  holding  in  their  own 
hands  the  authority  to  enforce,  or  attempt  to  enforce,  what 
they  proclaim.  How  far  these  declarations,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  acts  referred  to,  should  influence  our  conduct, 
is  a  question  on  which  we  may  not  all  agree.  But  it  appears 
to  me  that  it  would  be  a  great  error  in  statesmanship  to 
treat  them  as  wholly  unworthy  of  our  consideration.  Jeal- 
ousy of  our  increasing  power,  commercial  rivalry,  political 
interests,  all  combine  to  give  them  importance.  It  is  the 
province  of  a  wise  forecast  to  provide,  as  far  as  possible,  that 
these  adverse  influences  shall  find  no  theatre  for  their  exer- 
cise. To  abandon  Mexico  would,  it  seems  to  me,  throw  wide 
open  all  the  avenues  for  their  admittance,  —  to  one  power  for 
commercial  monopoly,  and  to  the  other  for  political  control, — 
and  perhaps  impose  on  us  the  difficult  and  dangerous  task 
of  removing  evils  which  a  proper  vigilance  might  have 
prevented. 

It  may  be,  Mr.  President,  that  we  shall  have  an  early 
peace.  I  sincerely  hope  so.  In  this  case,  we  must  withdraw 
from  Mexico ;  and  it  may  perhaps  be  said  that  the  dangers 
I  have  referred  to,  as  likely  to  result  from  our  absence 
at  the  present  moment,  may  possibly  be  realized.  These 
dangers,  whatever  they  may  be,  we  must  incur  whenever 
she  shall  tender  us  a  peace  which  we  ought  to  accept.  But 
there- is  a  wide  difference  between  retiring  as  belligerents  and 
enemies  without  a  treaty,  and  as  friends  under  an  amicable 
arrangement,  with  solemn  obligations  on  both  sides  to  keep 
the  peace.  In  the  former  case,  probably  one  of  the  first  acts 
of  Mexico  would  be  to  reassemble  her  army,  and  her  gov- 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  ^25 

ernment  might  fall  under  the  control  of  her  military  leaders. 
In  the  latter,  amicable  relations  being  restored,  and  military 
forces  being-  unnecessary,  at  least  to  act  against  us,  the  peace 
party  would  have  better  hopes  of  maintaining  themselves,  of 
preventing  the  army,  which  is  now  regarded  as  responsible 
for  the  national  disasters,  from  gaining  the  ascendency,  and 
also  of  excluding  influences  from  abroad,  which  would  be 
hostile  to  her  interests  and  fatal  to  the  common  tranquillity 
of  both  countries. 

In  the  references  I  have  made  to  France  and  Great 
Britain,  I  have  been  actuated  by  no  feeling  of  unkindness 
or  hostility  to  either.     Rapid  and  wide-spread  as  has  been 

^  the  progress  of  the  latter,  we  have  never  sought  to  interfere 
with  it.  She  holds  one  third  of  the  North  American  conti- 
nent. She  has  established  her  dominion  in  the  Bermudas, 
the  West  Indies,  and  in  Guiana,  on  the  South  American 
continent.     She  holds  Balize,   on   the  bay  of  Yucatan,  in 

j"  North  America,  with  a  district  of  about  fourteen  thousand 
square  miles,  if  we  may  trust  her  own  geographical  delinea- 

,    tions.     We  see  her  in  the  occupation  of  territories  in  every 

I  quarter  of  the  globe,  vastly,  inordinately  extended,  and  still 
ever  extending  herself.  It  is  not  easy  to  keep  pace  with  her 
encroachments.  A  few  years  ago,  the  Indus  was  the  western 
boundary  of  her  Indian  empire.  She  has  passed  it.  She 
has  overrun  Affghanistan   and  Beloochistan,  though   I  be- 

f  lieve  she  has  temporarily  withdrawn  from  the  former.  She 
stands  at  the  gates  of  Persia.  She  has  discussed  the  policy 
of  passing  Persia,  and  making  the  Tigris  her  western  boun- 
dary in  Asia.  One  stride  more  would  place  her  upon  the 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean ;  and  her  armies  would  no 
longer  find  their  way  to  India  by  the  circumnavigation  of 
Africa.  Indeed,  she  has  now,  for  all  government  purposes 
of  communication,  except  the  transportation  of  troops  and 
munitions  of  war,  a  direct  intercourse  with  the  east.  Her 
steamers  of  the  largest  class  run  from  England  to  Alexan- 
dria ;  from  Alexandria  there  is  a  water-communication  with 

29 


226  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Cairo,  —  some  sixty  miles ;  from  Cairo  it  is  but  eight  hours 
overland  to  Suez,  at  the  head  of  the  Red  Sea ;  from  Sues 
her  steamers  of  the  largest  class  run  to  Aden,  a  militar] 
station  of  hers  at  the  mouth  of  the  Red  Sea ;  from  Aden  t< 
Ceylon,  and  from  Ceylon  to  China.     She  is  not  merely  con-i 
quering  her  way  back  from  Hindoostan.     She  has  raised  hei 
standard  beyond  it.     She  has  entered  the  confines  of  th< 
Celestial   Empire.     She  has  gained  a  permanent  foothoh 
within  it ;  and  who  that  knows  her  can  believe  that  pretexts^ 
will  long  be  wanting  to  extend  her  dominion  there  1   Though 
it  is  for  commerce  mainly  that  she  is  thus  adding  to  the 
number  and  extent  of  her  dependencies,  it  is  not  for  com- 
merce alone.    The  love  of  power  and  extended  empire  is  one 
of  the  efficient  principles  of  her  gigantic  efforts  and  move- 
ments.   No  island,  however  remote,  no  rock,  however  barren, 
on  which  the  cross  of  St.  George  has  once  been  unfurled,  is 
ever  willingly  relinquished,  no  matter  how  expensive  or  in- 
convenient it  may  be  to  maintain  it.     She  may  be  said  liter- 
ally to  encircle  the  globe  by  an  unbroken  chain  of  depend- 
encies.    Nor  is  it  by  peaceful  means  that  she  is  thus  extend- 
ing herself.    She  propagates  commerce,  as  Mohammedanism 
propagated  religion,  by  fire  and  sword.     If  she  negotiates, 
it  is  with  fleets  and  armies  at  the  side  of  her  ambassadors, 
in  order,  to  use  the  language  of  her  diplomacy,  "  to  give 
force  to  their  representations."     She  is  essentially  and  emi- 
nently a  military  power,  unequalled  on  the  sea  and  unsur- 
passed on  the  land.     Happily,  the  civilization,  which  distin- 
guishes her  at  home,  goes  with  her  and  obliterates  some  of 
the  bloody  traces  of  her  march  to  unlimited  empire. 

Much  less  has  any  unkind  feeling  dictated  my  reference 
to  France.  Our  relations  with  her  have  usually  been  of  the 
most  friendly  character.  From  the  foundation  of  our  gov- 
ernment there  has  existed,  on  our  side,  a  strong  feeling  of 
sympathy  in  her  prosperities  and  her  misfortunes,  which  no 
temporary  interruption  of  our  friendship  has  been  able  to 
eradicate.      There  is  reason  for  this  feehng:  it  would  not 


THE   WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  g^ 

have  been  creditable  to  us  as  a  people  if  it  had  proved  a 
transient  sentiment.  She  stood  forth  at  a  critical  period  in 
our  contest  for  independence,  and  rendered  us  the  most 
essential  service  by  her  cooperation  and  aid.  The  swords  of 
Washington  and  Lafayette  were  unsheathed  on  the  same  battle- 
fields. Our  waters  and  our  plains  have  been  crimsoned  with 
the  generous  blood  of  France.  The  names  of  Rochambeau, 
De  Grasse,  and  D'Estaing  are  identified  with  our  struggles 
for  freedom.  They  have  become,  in  some  degree,  American, 
and  we  give  them  to  our  children  as  names  to  be  remem- 
bered for  the  gallant  deeds  of  those  who  bore  them.  It  is 
not  surprising,  under  such  circumstances,  that  in  the  survey 
of  the  European  system  we  should  have  been  accustomed  to 
regard  France  as  the  power  most  likely,  in  the  progress  of 
events,  to  become  the  rival  of  England  on  the  ocean  as  she 
has  been  on  the  land ;  and  with  a  large  portion  of  our 
people,  if  the  wish  has  not  been  "  parent,"  it  has,  at  least, 
been  companion  "  to  the  thought."  For  this  reason,  the 
declaration  of  M.  Guizot  was  considered,  independently  of 
all  views  of  right,  as  peculiarly  ungracious,  and  as  a  demon- 
stration of  feeling  totally  inconsistent  with  the  ancient  friend- 
ship by  which  the  two  countries  have  been  united.  I  have 
never  believed  it  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of 
the  French  people.  And  so  strong  has  been  my  reliance  on 
their  right  judgment  and  feeling,  that  I  confess  I  have 
thought  it  not  unlikely  that  an  interposition  in  our  affairs, 
so  completely  at  variance  with  amicable  relations,  which 
ought  to  be  held  sacred,  might  be  arrested  by  a  more  deci- 
sive interposition  at  home  against  its  authors. 

I  repeat,  I  have  spoken  in  no  spirit  of  unkindness  either 
towards  Great  Britain  or  France.  I  desire  nothing  but 
friendship  with  them,  —  close,  cordial,  constant,  mutually 
beneficial  friendship.  I  speak  of  them  historically,  as  they 
exist  and  exhibit  themselves  to  the  eyes  of  the  civilized 
world. 

Thus  far,  I  have  considered  the  probable  consequences  of 


22S  SPEECHES  m  THE  SENATE. 

retiring  trom  Mexico,  as  they  are  likely  to  affect  our  politic? 
relations  with  her,  and  possibly  with  other  states.  I  now 
turn,  for  a  single  moment  only,  to  a  different  class  of  consid- 
erations, —  I  mean  considerations  arising  out  of  our  claims 
to  indemnity  for  injuries.  Although  the  war  was  not  com- 
menced to  secure  it,  this  is  one  of  the  avowed  objects  for 
which  it  has  been  prosecuted.  Shall  we  abandon  the  posi- 
tion we  have  taken,  and  leave  this  object  unaccomplished  ? 
Shall  we  not  rather  retain  what  we  have  acquired,  until  our 
just  claims  are  satisfied  1  To  do  otherwise  would  be  to  have 
incurred  an  enormous  expenditure  of  treasure  and  blood  to 
no  purpose,  —  to  have  prosecuted  the  war  till  we  had  the 
means  of  indemnifying  ourselves  in  our  own  hands,  and 
then  voluntarily  to  relinquish  them.  Such  a  course  seems 
to  me  utterly  irreconcilable  either  with  justice  to  ourselves  or 
with  sound  policy.  If  I  am  not  mistaken  in  the  views  I 
have  expressed,  it  would  be  an  abandonment  of  indemnity 
without  getting  rid  of  the  war,  on  which  we  must  now  rely 
to  procure  it.  These  considerations  do  not  apply  to  the 
policy  suggested  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  South  Caro- 
lina. He  proposes  to  take  indemnity  into  our  own  hands,  by 
occupying  a  portion  of  northern  or  central  Mexico,  and  hold- 
ing it  without  a  treaty.  My  remarks  are  only  applicable  to 
the  policy  of  withdrawing  from  Mexico  altogether,  and  leav- 
ing the  adjustment  of  differences  to  future  negotiations. 

Having  thus  declared  myself  in  favor  of  the  occupation 
of  Mexico  until  she  shall  consent  to  make  peace,  I  deem  it 
proper  to  say,  in  connection  with  this  subject,  that  I  have 
been  uniformly  opposed,  and  that  I  am  still  opposed,  to  all 
schemes  of  conquest  for  the  acquisition  of  territory.  In  this 
respect,  I  concur  in  what  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina 
has  said,  and  for  nearly  the  same  reasons.  I  am  opposed  to 
all  such  schemes,  because  they  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  avowed  objects  of  the  war ;  because  they  would  be  in- 
compatible with  justice  and  sound  policy;  and  because,  if 
successful,  they  would  be  utterly  subversive  of  the  funda- 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  229 

mental  principle  of  our  political  systenn,  resting  as  it  does 
on  a  voluntary  association  of  free  and  independent  states. 
I  have  been  uniformly  in  favor  of  the  most  energetic  meas- 
ures in  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  because  I  believed  them 
most  likely  to  bring  it  to  a  close.  In  carrying  our  arms  to 
the  enemy's  capital  and  occupying  his  territory,  I  can  see 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  justice  or  the 
usages  of  civilized  states.  In  the  prosecution  of  a  war 
undertaken  to  procure  a  redress  of  injuries,  the  territories 
or  property  of  an  enemy  may  be  seized  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  compeUing  him  to  do  justice.  More  may  be  taken 
than  would  constitute  a  fair  indemnity  for  actual  injuries, 
provided  it  be  done  with  the  intention  of  restoring  the  sur- 
plus when  he  shall  consent  to  make  peace  on  reasonable 
terms.  It  is  in  this  spirit,  and  with  this  intention,  that  my 
cooperation  has  been  given  to  the  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war.  We  have  a  right  to  insist  on  a  fair  boundary ;  we 
may  exact  indemnity  for  injuries ;  we  may  demand  indemni- 
fication for  the  expenses  of  the  war,  if  we  please.  But  here 
all  right  ceases;  and  if,  when  this  is  conceded,  we  have 
more  on  our  hands,  we  are  bound,  on  every  principle  of  law 
and  good  conscience,  to  make  restitution.  It  is  admitted  on 
all  hands  that  Mexico  is  incapable  of  indemnifying  us  in 
money.  But  she  may  do  so  by  ceding  to  us  territory  which 
is  useless  to  her,  which  she  has  not  the  ability  to  defend,  and 
which  may  be  useful  to  us.  I  have  always  been  in  favor  of 
acquiring  territory  on  just  terms.  The  acquisition  of  Cali- 
fornia has  always  appeared  to  me  very  desirable,  on  account 
of  its  ports  on  the  Pacific.  I  have  uniformly  voted  for 
acquiring  it,  when  the  proposition  has  come  before  us.  I 
believe,  on  the  first  occasion,  I  was  in  a  minority  of  ten  or 
eleven.  My  opinion  is  unchanged.  Indeed,  it  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact,  that  California  has,  by  our  military  operations, 
become  forever  detached  from  Mexico.  If  it  were  to  be 
abandoned  by  us,  its  forty  thousand  inhabitants  would  un- 
doubtedly establish  an  independent  government  for  them- 


280  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

selves,  and  they  would  maintain  it,  if  undisturbed  by  foreign 
interference.  I  take  the  actual  condition  of  things  as  I  find 
it,  and  with  an  earnest  desire  to  fulfil  all  the  obligations  it 
devolves  on  us  in  a  spirit  of  justice  towards  Mexico  and 
towards  the  people  of  California. 

I  concur,  also,  in  what  the  honorable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina  has  said  in  relation  to  the  influence  of  war  on  our 
political  institutions.  No  man  can  deplore  it,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, more  than  myself.  Independently  of  the  evils 
which  it  always  brings  in  its  train,  there  are  considerations 
connected  with  our  political  organization  and  the  nature  of 
our  social  progress,  which  render  it  doubly  pernicious  in  its 
tendencies.  The  final  success  of  the  experiment  we  are 
making  in  free  government  may  depend,  in  some  degree,  on 
a  steady  maintenance  of  the  spirit  of  peace,  in  which  our 
political  system  had  its  origin,  and  in  which  it  has  thus  far 
been  administered.  Great  as  is  our  capacity  for  war,  our 
whole  scheme  of  government  is  averse  to  it.  The  greatest 
possible  economy  in  expenditure  ;  the  least  possible  patron- 
age in  the  hands  of  the  Executive ;  the  smallest  pecuniary 
exactions  from  the  people,  consistent  with  our  absolute 
wants ;  the  absence  of  all  demands  on  the  public  treasury 
which  call  for  unusual  contributions  of  revenue  or  promote 
excessive  disbursements  ;  the  exemption  of  the  country  from 
all  exigencies  which  devolve  on  the  legislative  and  executive 
departments  of  the  government  the  exercise  of  extraordinary 
powers  ;  —  these  are  the  conditions  under  which  the  ends  of 
our  political  organization  are  most  likely  to  be  fulfilled. 
Sir,  none  of  these  conditions  belong  to  a  state  of  war.  Ex- 
travagant disbursements;  extraordinary  contributions  of 
revenue,  present  or  prospective,  —  present,  in  augmented 
burdens  of  taxation,  prospective,  in  the  shape  of  loans  and 
anticipations  of  income,  leading  ultimately  to  taxation ;  ex- 
traordinary powers  summarily,  and  sometimes  arbitrarily 
exercised ;  —  these  are  the  inseparable  companions  of  war ; 
and  they  are  inimical  to  the  very  genius  of  our  social  system. 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  281 

There  are  considerations,  which,  in  my  judgment,  render 
a  war  with  Mexico  pecuHarly  unfortunate,  and  which  justify 
all  the  ej0forts  we  have  made  to  bring  it  to  an  amicable  ter- 
mination. We  are  mutually  engaged  in  carrying  out  on 
this  continent  the  experiment  of  free  government,  which  in 
all  other  ages  has  proved  abortive.  We  are  trying  it  under 
eminently  auspicious  circumstances.  We  have  no  strong 
governments  around  us,  founded  upon  antagonist  principles, 
and  adverse  in  their  example  and  influence  to  the  success  of 
ours.  We  are  sustained  by  the  faculty  of  popular  repre- 
sentation, which  was  unknown,  or  at  least  imperfectly 
known,  to  the  free  states  of  antiquity,  and  by  force  of  which 
we  have  been  enabled  to  carry  out,  on  geographical  areas  of 
indefinite  extent,  an  organization  which  had  previously  been 
deemed  applicable  only  to  communities  of  limited  population 
and  territory.  It  is  natural,  under  these  circumstances,  that 
the  friends  of  free  government,  wherever  they  are  to  be 
found,  should  turn  to  us  as  the  last  hope  of  liberal  institu- 
tions. They  look  to  us  for  examples  of  moderation  and 
forbearance  in  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  —  espe- 
cially those  having  forms  of  government  analogous  to  our 
own,  —  and  for  an  exemption  from  the  evil  passions  which 
have  embroiled  the  countries  of  the  old  world,  and  involved 
them,  century  after  century,  with  brief  intermissions,  in  wars 
of  ambition  and  revenge.  In  asserting  the  superiority  of 
our  own  form  of  government,  the  strength  of  the  argument 
will  be  weakened,  if  we  shall  be  found  no  more  exempt  than 
those  which  are  less  popular,  from  strife  and  contention  with 
neighboring  states.  Regarding  the  success  of  our  institu- 
tions as  affecting  deeply  the  welfare  of  our  race,  and  vindi- 
cating the  competency  of  mankind  to  self-government,  I 
have  always  esteemed  it  peculiarly  unfortunate  that  any 
cause  of  alienation  should  have  existed  of  sufficient  magni- 
tude to  induce  the  two  principal  republics  of  the  western  hem- 
isphere to  turn  their  arms  against  each  other.  The  cause  of 
liberal  government  is  injured,  and  far  more  deeply  injured 


2S2  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

than  it  has  been  by  the  dissension  of  the  republics  in  tl 
southern  portion  of  the  American  continent. 

These  are  considerations  which  it  were  well  for  us  always 
to  keep  in  view :  in  peace,  that  we  may  not  rush  hastily 
into  war ;  in  war,  that  we  may  spare  no  honorable  effort  for 
a  restoration  of  peace. 

There  is  yet  another  consideration  of  a  kindred  character. 
While  the  monarchies  of  Europe  are  at  peace  with  each 
other,  and  social  improvement  is  advancing,  on  the  continent 
at  least,  with  unparalleled  rapidity,  almost  the  only  wars  now 
waging  among  neighboring  states  are  between  us  and 
Mexico,  and  between  some  of  the  South  American  republics. 
I  desire,  as  much  as  any  one  can,  to  see  these  dissensions 
composed,  and  to  see  these  republican  states  resume  the  ful- 
filment of  their  great  mission  among  the  nations,  —  the 
maintenance  of  the  principles  of  political  liberty,  and  the 
cultivation  of  the  arts  of  civilization  and  peace. 

In  these  views  I  concur  with  the  Senator  from  South 
Carolina.  But  here  I  am  constrained  to  separate  from  him. 
When  we  come  to  practical  measures,  our  paths  lie  wide 
apart. 

It  is  for  the  very  reasons  I  have  just  stated,  that  I  cannot 
assent  to  the  policy  he  proposes.  I  believe  it  calculated  to 
prolong  the  war,  not  to  terminate  it ;  to  keep  alive  the  spirit 
of  animosity  which  divides  us  from  Mexico,  instead  of  re- 
storing the  friendly  relations  which  ought  to  exist  between  us. 
I  am  in  favor,  then,  of  standing  as  we  are.  And,  sir,  if 
she  shall  refuse  to  make  peace,  if  we  must  continue  in  the 
occupation  of  her  capital  and  three  fourths  of  her  territory, 
it  may  be  in  the  order  of  Providence  that  we  shall,  through 
this  very  necessity,  become  the  instruments  of  her  political 
and  social  regeneration.  In  the  party  conflicts  which  distract 
her,  the  means  may  be  found  of  consolidating  her  govern- 
ment on  a  republican  basis,  of  healing  her  dissensions,  and 
of  uniting  her  to  us  in  bonds  of  friendship  by  an  exercise  of 
magnanimity  and  forbearance  in  the  final  adjustment  of  our 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  233 

difficulties  with  her.  I  beHeve  even  now  something  of  the 
salutary  influence  of  our  presence  in  her  capital  and  principal 
seaports  begins  to  be  felt.  The  abolition  of  transit  duties, 
the  reduction  of  the  impost  on  foreign  articles  of  necessity 
and  convenience,  and  a  freer  commerce  among  the  Mexican 
states,  may,  if  continued,  strike  a  fatal  blow  at  the  anti- 
commercial  system  by  which  her  people  have  been  oppressed, 
and  the  internal  abuses  by  which  her  rulers  have  grown 
rich,  —  a  system  of  mal-administration  not  even  equalled  by 
that  which  exists  in  old  Spain.  The  higher  improvement  in 
government,  in  the  arts,  and  in  civilization  under  all  its 
forms,  which  distinguishes  our  own  people,  may,  by  force  of 
actual  contact,  be  communicated  to  the  Mexicans,  and  lay 
the  foundation  of  an  improved  social  order.  Startling  as 
the  reflection  is,  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that  civilization,  and 
even  Christianity,  have  sometimes  been  propagated  by  arms, 
where  they  would  otherwise  have  been  hopelessly  excluded. 
Thus,  the  very  passions  which  seem  fitted  only  to  desolate 
human  society,  may,  in  the  hands  of  Providence,  become 
the  agents  of  its  advancement.  Let  us,  then,  hope  and  trust 
that  the  contest  in  which  we  are  engaged  with  a  neighboring 
power,  deplorable  as  we  all  consider  it,  may  be  an  instru- 
ment of  social  and  political  amelioration  to  our  adversary. 

The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  has  said,  in  his  emphatic 
language,  that  we  are  "  tied  to  a  corpse."  It  is  a  striking 
figure,  Mr.  President,  and  partakes  strongly  of  the  boldness 
in  which  the  illustrations  of  that  distinguished  Senator  are 
always  conceived  Mexico  is,  indeed,  prostrate  —  almost 
politically  inanimate,  if  you  please  —  under  the  oppressions 
which  have  been  heaped  upon  her,  year  after  year,  by  un- 
scrupulous rulers.  But  I  should  be  sorry  to  believe  her 
beyond  the  power  of  resuscitation,  even  by  human  means. 
I  do  not  expect,  as  our  contact  with  her  becomes  more  inti- 
mate, to  see  her,  like  the  dead  body  touched  by  the  bones 
of  the  prophet,  spring,  at  a  single  bound,  to  life  and  strength. 
But  I  hope  to  see  her  —  possibly  through  our  instrumental- 


2S4f  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 


I 


ity  —  freed  from  the  despotic  sway  of  her  military  rulers, 
and  rising,  by  sure  degrees,  to  the  national  importance  I 
wish  her  to  possess;  — order  and  tranquillity  first,  next  social 
improvement  and  stable  government,  and  at  last  an  honor- 
able rank  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  I  contemplate 
no  direct  interference  with  her  government,  no  permanent 
system  of  protection  to  be  exercised  over  it,  no  alliance 
with  her  beyond  what  may  be  necessary  to  secure  to  us  the 
objects  of  peace.  But  I  do  contemplate  a  treaty  stipulating 
for  commercial  arrangements,  for  protection  and  security  to 
our  own  citizens  in  their  future  intercourse  with  her,  and  no 
withdrawal  of  our  forces  without  it ;  at  least,  until  all  chance 
of  obtaining  one  shall  prove  hopeless.  If  we  were  to  retire 
now,  all  commerce  between  her  and  us  would  cease  and  be 
transferred  to  our  rivals ;  our  frontier  would  be  a  line  of  war, 
not  a  boundary  between  peaceful  neighbors  ;  and  unless  the 
tide  of  conquest  should  be  poured  back  upon  her,  under  the 
provocations  such  a  condition  of  our  relations  would  almost 
necessarily  superinduce,  no  citizen  of  the  United  States 
could  be  expected,  for  years  to  come,  to  plant  his  foot  on 
Mexican  soil.  War  dissolves  the  political  and  commercial 
relations  of  independent  states,  so  far  as  they  rest  upon  vol- 
untary agreement.  It  is  only  by  a  treaty  of  peace  that  they 
can  be  revived,  or  new  relations  be  substituted  for  the  old. 

Mr.  President,  advocating  as  I  do  the  occupation  of  Mex- 
ico until  she  shall  consent  to  make  peace,  it  may  be  incum- 
bent on  me  to  state  in  what  manner  I  think  it  can  best  be 
maintained.  And  here  I  must  say,  I  think  the  estimates  of 
the  effective  force  in  the  field  have  been  greatly  overstated. 
I  propose  no  specific  plan  for  adoption.  I  leave  all  practical 
measures  in  the  hands  of  those  to  whom  they  belong.  I 
only  purpose  to  state  what  suggests  itself  to  my  mind  as 
advisable.  I  think  we  should  find  it  most  advantageous  to 
remain  much  as  we  are,  excepting  to  occupy  such  ports  on 
the  Pacific  as  our  fleet  may  reduce  and  maintain  as  commer- 
cial avenues  to  the  interior.    It  may,  however,  become  neces- 


i 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  285 

sary  to  occupy  San  Luis  Potosi  and  Zacatecas,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  mining  operations  in  those  states,  and  the 
agricultural  districts  near  the  city  of  Mexico,  to  command 
supplies  for  the  army.  I  should  consider  an  army  of  twenty- 
five  thousand  well-disciplined,  effective  men,  the  smallest 
number  adequate  to  the  purpose  of  maintaining  positions, 
keeping  open  communications  from  the  coast  to  the  interior, 
and  dispersing  the  enemy's  troops,  if  they  shall  be  reem- 
bodied;  but,  in  order  to  keep  up  such  a  force,  we  should 
require  a  nominal  organization  of  at  least  forty  thousand 
men,  with  full  thirty  thousand  under  pay.  Without  the 
general  staff,  the  twenty-five  regiments  of  regulars  now  in 
service,  and  the  ten  new  regiments  proposed  by  the  bill,  will 
constitute  such  a  force ;  and  when  the  latter  shall  be  raised 
and  brought  into  the  field,  a  portion  of  the  volunteers  may 
be  discharged,  if  it  shall  be  found  prudent  to  do  so.  Many 
of  the  regiments  are  greatly  reduced  in  numbers,  and,  as  I 
understand,  are  anxious  to  return  home.  I  doubt  now 
whether  there  are  more  than  twenty-five  thousand  effective 
men  in  all  Mexico,  though  the  rolls  show  over  forty  thou- 
sand.^ Some  of  the  returns  on  which  the  Adjutant-Gener- 
al's report  is  founded  are  of  as  early  a  date  as  August  last. 
It  will  be  recollected  that  last  summer,  when  there  was  great 
anxiety  in  relation  to  General  Scott,  statements  of  the  num- 
ber of  his  troops  were  published  here.  They  were  founded 
on  the  returns  in  the  Adjutant-General's  office ;  and  in  his 
official  report  of  the  battles  before  the  city  of  Mexico,  Gen- 
eral Scott  complained  that  his  force  had  been  greatly  over- 
stated. He  said  it  had  been  "  trebled  "  in  these  returns,  if 
I  recollect  rightly,  and  that  the  army  had  been  "  disgusted  " 
by  the  exaggeration.  The  returns  of  the  army  now  should, 
in  like  manner,  be  subjected  to  great  deductions  in  order  to 
obtain  the  real  effective  force.  If  the  ten  regiments  pro- 
posed by  the  bill  are  authorized,  months  will  be  required  to 

1    General  Cass,    chairman    of  the    opinion  that  they  did  not  exceed  twen- 
Committee  on    Military  Affairs,  here    ty-four  thousand, 
said,    the    Adjutant-General    was    of 


2SQ  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

raise  them ;  they  will  not,  probably,  as  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  has  stated,  give  many  more 
than  seven  thousand  men,  and  in  the  mean  time  the  army 
will  become  constantly  diminished  by  the  casualties  of  ser- 
vice. For  these  reasons,  and  for  those  given  —  so  ably 
given  —  some  days  since  by  my  honorable  friend  from  Mis- 
sissippi,^ I  support  the  bill.  I  support  it  for  another  reason, 
which  has  governed  me  from  the  commencement  of  the  war : 
to  place  at  the  control  of  the  Executive  the  men  and  means 
deemed  necessary  to  bring  it  to  an  honorable  termination. 

As  hostilities  are  now  suspended,  the  chief  province  of 
the  army  will  be  to  maintain  internal  tranquillity,  support 
the  civil  authorities  in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  to  free  the 
country  from  the  robber  and  guerrilla  bands  by  which  it  is 
infested,  and  subserve  the  great  purposes  of  government  by 
affording  security  to  liberty,  property,  and  life,  —  a  security 
the  Mexicans  have  not  often  fully  enjoyed.  The  very  exer- 
cise of  these  beneficent  agencies  will  tend  to  disarm  hostility 
towards  us  with  the  thinking  portion  of  the  population.  It 
will  place  our  armies  in  a  most  favorable  contrast  with  hers, 
which  have  been  scourges,  rather  than  protectors,  to  their  own 
countrymen.  I  would,  if  possible,  have  no  more  bloodshed. 
I  would  make  our  armies  the  protectors,  not  the  enemies, 
of  the  Mexican  people,  and  render  them  subservient  to  the 
eradication  of  abuses,  and  to  the  institution  of  a  better  civil 
administration,  under  Mexican  magistrates,  abstaining  from 
all  interference  with  the  frame  of  the  government,  and 
changing  in  its  action  only  what,  by  universal  consent,  re- 
quires to  be  changed.  If  this  course  were  to  be  adopted 
and  steadily  pursued,  I  should  earnestly  hope  its  effect  would 
be,  at  no  distant  time,  to  make  the  capital,  under  our  protec- 
tion, the  centre  of  an  influence  which  would  lead  to  the  rees- 
tabhshment  of  the  federative  system  on  a  durable  basis,  and 
give  to  that  distracted  country  the  settled  order  'which  is 
alone  necessary  to  make  her  happy  and  prosperous. 

1  Mr.  Davis. 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  £37 

To  abandon  the  city  of  Mexico  would,  I  fear,  put  an  end 
to  all  these  prospects  and  hopes.  That  city  is  the  political, 
as  well  as  the  financial,  centre  of  the  Republic.  It  is  there 
governments  have  been  instituted  and  deposed,  armies  levied, 
revenue  systems  devised  and  carried  into  execution.  So 
long  as  we  hold  it,  and  control  the  adjoining  districts,  I  be- 
lieve nothing  but  imprudence  or  mismanagement  can  raise 
up  a  formidable  opposition  to  us.     If  we  abandon  it,  all  the 

j  resources  of  the  country,  which  it  commands,  will  again  be 
at  the  control  of  its  rulers,  to  be  employed  against  us  in  the 
renewal  of  active  hostilities.  Before  it  was  captured,  ener- 
getic movements  seemed  to  me  our  true  policy.     Now  that 

I  it  is  in  our  undisputed  possession,  our  leading  object  should 
be  to  introduce  better  commercial  and  financial  systems,  and 
let  them  work  out,  under  our  protection,  their  legitimate  re- 
sults. 

Great  qualities  are  necessary  in  him  who  is  charged  with 
the  execution  of  these  delicate  and  responsible  functions. 
He  should  have  prudence,  self-control,  a  knowledge  of  civil 
affairs,  of  the  country,  of  the  people  and  their  character, 
and,  if  possible,  their  language.  Established  institutions, 
existing  usages,  sometimes  prejudices  even,  must  be  re- 
spected. Some  of  the  most  disastrous  reverses  which  have 
befallen  armies  of  occupation  have  had  their  origin  in  viola- 
tions of  the  prevailing  customs  and  feelings  of  the  people. 
To  avoid  this  fatal  error,  everything  depends  on  the  discre- 
tion and  wisdom  of  the  directing  authority. 

It  may  be,  that  all  reasonable  expectations  will  be  disap- 
pointed ;  that  the  hostility  of  Mexico  will  prove  unappeas- 
able ;  that  she  will  prefer  the  political  disorganization  which 
now  exists  to  an  amicable  arrangement  with  us.  If  so,  cir- 
cumstances must  dictate  the  course  to  be  pursued  when  this 
conviction  shall  be  forced  on  us.  But,  sir,  let  us  not  adopt 
such  a  conclusion  hastily.  Let  us  rely  on  the  influence  of 
more  rational  motives  to  give  us  peace. 

And  now,  sir,  I  submit  whether  this  course  had  not  better 


238  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE.  _ 

4 

be  pursued  for  a  while,  if  I  am  right  in  supposing  the  tem- 
porary occupation  of  Mexico,  under  discreet  officers,  may 
lead  to  a  stable  peace,  rather  than  to  withdraw  our  forces, 
and  leave  the  adjustment  of  difficulties  to  the  uncertain 
chance  of  a  restoration  of  a  responsible  government,  to  be 
terminated  at  last,  perhaps,  by  the  renewed  arbitrament  of 
arms. 

I  have  thus  stated  with  frankness  the  views  I  entertain  in 
respect  to  the  future  conduct  of  the  war.  Notwithstanding 
the  anxious  consideration  I  have  given  to  the  subject,  they 
may  be  erroneous.  It  is  a  question  of  great  difficulty,  on 
which  differences  of  opinion  may  well  exist,  and  on  which 
a  mistaken  course  of  policy  may  lead  to  the  most  unpleasant 
consequences.  Whatever  faith  I  may  entertain  in  the  sound- 
ness of  the  opinions  I  have  advanced,  I  certainly  should 
have  more,  if  they  were  not  totally  at  variance  with  those  of 
gentlemen  possessing,  from  longer  experience,  much  higher 
claims  than  myself  to  public  confidence.  But  I  have  not  on 
this  account  thought  proper  to  withhold  them,  knowing,  as 
we  do,  that,  from  the  very  contrariety  and  conflict  of  thought 
and  conviction,  valuable  deductions  may  sometimes  be  drawn. 

Mr.  President,  I  feel  that  I  have  already  trespassed  too 
long  on  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate ;  but  I  am  unwilling 
to  close  without  asking  its  attention  for  a  very  few  moments 
to  some  considerations  connected  with  our  future  growth 
and  progress,  and  with  the  influence  we  must,  in  spite  of 
ourselves,  exert  over  the  destinies  of  Mexico.  They  are  no 
new  opinions :  they  have  been  expressed  years  ago,  both  in 
public"  and  private. 

Sir,  no  one  who  has  paid  a  moderate  degree  of  attention 
to  the  laws  and  elements  of  our  increase,  can  doubt  that  our 
population  is  destined  to  spread  itself  across  the  American 
continent,  filling  up,  with  more  or  less  completeness,  accord- 
ing to  attractions  of  soil  and  climate,  the  space  that  inter- 
venes between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans.  This  event- 
ual, and,  perhaps,  in  the  order  of  time,  this  not  very  distant 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  289 

extension  of  our  settlements  over  a  tract  of  country,  with 
a  diameter,  as  we  go  westward,  greatly  disproportioned  to 
its  length,  becomes  a  subject  of  the  highest  interest  to  us. 
On  the  whole  extent  of  our  northern  flank,  from  New  Bruns- 
wick to  the  point  where  the  northern  boundary  of  Oregon 
touches  the  Pacific,  we  are  in  contact  with  British  colonists, 
having,  for  the  most  part,  the  same  common  origin  with 
ourselves,  but  controlled  and  moulded  by  political  influences 
I  from  the  eastern  hemisphere,  if  not  adverse,  certainly  not 
decidedly  friendly  to  us.  The  strongest  tie  which  can  be 
relied  on  to  bind  us  to  mutual  offices  of  friendship  and  good 
neighborhood,  is  that  of  commerce ;  and  this,  as  we  know, 
is  apt  to  run  into  rivalry,  and  sometimes  becomes  a  fruitful 
source  of  alienation. 

From  our  northern  boundary,  we  turn  to  our  southern. 
What  races  are  to  border  on  us  here,  what  is  to  be  their 
social  and  political  character,  and  what  their  means  of  annoy- 
ance ]  Are  our  two  frontiers,  only  seven  parallels  of  lati- 
tute  apart  when  we  pass  Texas,  to  be  flanked  by  settlements 
having  no  common  bond  of  union  with  ours  ]  Our  whole 
southern  line  is  conterminous,  throughout  its  whole  extent, 
with  the  territories  of  Mexico,  a  large  portion  of  which  is 
nearly  unpopulated.  The  geographical  area  of  Mexico  is 
about  1,500,000  square  miles,  and  her  population  about 
7,000,000  souls.  The  whole  northern  and  central  portion, 
taking  the  twenty-sixth  parallel  of  latitude  as  the  dividing 
line,  containing  more  than  1,000,000  square  miles,  has  about 
650,000  inhabitants,  —  about  two  inhabitants  to  three  square 
miles.  The  southern  portion,  with  less  than  500,000  square 
miles,  has  a  population  of  nearly  six  and  a  half  millions  of 
souls,  or  thirteen  inhabitants  to  one  square  mile.  The  ab- 
original races,  which  occupy  and  overrun  a  portion  of  Cali- 
fornia and  New  Mexico,  must  there,  as  everywhere  else, 
give  way  before  the  advancing  wave  of  civilization,  either  to 
be  overwhelmed  by  it,  or  to  be  driven  upon  perpetually  con- 
tracting areas,  where,  from  a  diminution  of  their  accustomed 


£40  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

sources  of  subsistence,  they  must  ultimately  become  extinct 
by  force  of  an  invincible  law.  We  see  the  operation  of  this 
law  in  every  portion  of  this  continent.  We  have  no  power 
to  control  it,  if  we  would.  It  is  the  behest  of  Providence 
that  idleness,  and  ignorance,  and  barbarism,  shall  give  place 
to  industry,  and  knowledge,  and  civilization.  The  European 
and  mixed  races  which  possess  Mexico  are  not  likely,  either 
from  moral  or  physical  energy,  to  become  formidable  rivals 
or  enemies.  The  bold  and  courageous  enterprise  which  over- 
ran and  conquered  Mexico,  appears  not  to  have  descended 
to  the  present  possessors  of  the  soil.  Either  from  the  influ- 
ence of  climate  or  the  admixture  of  races,  —  the  fusion  of 
castes,  to  use  the  technical  phrase,  —  the  conquerors  have,  in 
turn,  become  the  conquered.  The  ancient  Castilian  energy 
is,  in  a  great  degree,  subdued  ;  and  it  has  given  place,  with 
many  other  noble  traits  of  the  Spanish  character,  to  a  pecu- 
liarity which  seems  to  have  marked  the  race  in  that  country, 
under  whatever  combinations  it  is  found,  —  a  proneness  to 
civil  discord,  and  a  suicidal  waste  of  its  own  strength. 

With  such  a  territory  and  such  a  people  on  our  southern 
border,  what  is  to  be  the  inevitable  course  of  empire  ?  It 
needs  no  powers  of  prophecy  to  foretell.  Sir,  I  desire  to 
speak  plainly :  why  should  we  not,  when  we  are  discussing 
the  operation  of  moral  and  physical  laws,  which  are  beyond 
our  control  1  As  our  population  moves  westward  on  our 
own  territory,  portions  will  cross  our  southern  boundary. 
Settlements  will  be  formed  within  the  unoccupied  and 
sparsely  peopled  territory  of  Mexico.  Uncongenial  habits 
and  tastes,  differences  of  political  opinion  and  principle,  and 
numberless  other  elements  of  diversity,  will  lead  to  a  separa- 
tion of  these  newly-formed  societies  from  the  inefficient  gov- 
ernment of  Mexico.  They  will  not  endure  to  be  held  in 
subjection  to  a  system  which  neither  yields  them  protection 
nor  offers  them  any  incentive  to  their  proper  development 
and  growth.  They  will  form  independent  states  on  the 
basis  of  constitutions  identical  in  all  their  leading  features 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  241 

with  our  own  ;  and  they  will  naturally  seek  to  unite  their 
fortunes  to  ours.  The  fate  of  California  is  already  sealed : 
it  can  never  be  reunited  to  Mexico.  The  operation  of  the 
great  causes  to  which  I  have  alluded  must,  at  no  distant 
day,  detach  the  whole  of  northern  Mexico  from  the  southern 
portion  of  that  republic.  It  is  for  the  very  reason  that  she 
is  incapable  of  defending  her  possessions  against  the  elements 
of  disorder  within  and  the  progress  of  better  influences  from 
without,  that  I  desire  to  see  the  inevitable  political  change, 
which  is  to  be  wrought  in  the  condition  of  her  northern  de- 
partments, brought  about  without  any  improper  interference 
on  our  part.  I  do  not  speak  of  our  military  movements. 
I  refer  to  the  time  when  our  difficulties  with  her  shall  be 
healed,  and  when  she  shall  be  left  to  the  operation  of  pacific 
influences,  —  silent,  but  more  powerful  than  the  arm  of  force. 
For  the  reason  that  she  is  defenceless,  if  for  no  other,  I 
jl  should  be  opposed  to  all  schemes  of  conquest.  Acquisition 
by  force  is  the  vice  of  arbitrary  governments.  I  desire 
never  to  see  it  the  reproach  of  ours.  For  the  sake  of  the 
national  honor,  as  well  as  the  permanency  of  our  political 
institutions,  I  desire  tiot  to  see  it.  The  extension  of  free 
(j  government  on  this  continent  can  only  be  arrested,  if  arrested 
'at  all,  by  substituting  war  for  the  arts  of  peace.  Leave  it  to 
itself,  and  nothing  can  prevent  the  progress  of  our  popula- 
tion across  the  continent.  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  his  prophetic 
forecast,  foretold  this  result  forty  years  ago.  He  prophesied 
the  peaceful  progress  of  our  people  to  the  Pacific.  He  fore- 
saw them  forming  new  settlements,  and,  when  strong  enough 
to  maintain  themselves,  organizing  independent  societies,  and 
governing  themselves  by  constitutions  and  laws  analogous  to 
our  own.  It  is  true,  he  believed  the  area  of  freedom  might 
be  enlarged,  advantageously  to  ourselves  and  others,  without 
extending  to  the  same  broad  limits  the  area  of  our  jurisdic- 
tion. It  was  the  progress  and  the  triumph  of  great  prin- 
ciples of  political  right  to  which  his  philosophical  mind 
instinctively  turned  as  to  the  legitimate  aim  and  boundary 

81 


£4^  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

of  our  ambition  and  desires.  Since  his  day  the  public  mind 
in  this  country  has  greatly  outrun  his  anticipations  of  our 
progress.  It  looks  to  the  extension  of  our  Constitution  and 
laws  over  regions,  which  were  formerly  considered  beyond 
our  reach  as  integral  portions  of  the  same  system  of  govern- 
ment. Modern  improvements  have  given  great  strength  to 
this  prevailing  sentiment.  It  is  possible  by  steam-power,  if 
we  can  succeed  in  making  the  proper  application  of  it  over 
so  broad  a  surface,  to  reach  the  Pacific  Ocean  from  Lake 
Michigan,  or  the  Mississippi,  in  eight  or  nine  days,  —  a 
period  of  time  less  than  that  which  was  required  to  travel 
from  Boston  to  Philadelphia,  when  the  Congress  of  the 
American  colonies  first  assembled  in  the  latter  city.  Under 
these  circumstances,  the  extension  of  our  political  boundary 
so  as  to  embrace  all  territory  we  may  justly  call  our  own, 
seems  no  longer  to  be  considered  a  questionable  policy.  If 
other  districts,  not  now  within  the  territories  of  the  Union, 
shall  found  independent  governments,  and  shall  desire  to 
unite  themselves  to  us  on  terms  mutually  acceptable,  it  is 
a  question  which  concerns  only  them  and  us,  and  in  which 
no  stranger  can  be  permitted  to  intrude.  When  the  time 
comes  for  the  settlement  of  any  such  questions,  they  will 
doubtless  be  considered  with  all  the  solemnity  which  belongs 
to  propositions  involving  the  public  welfare.  To  those  with 
whom  the  decision  belongs  let  us  leave  them,  with  the  assur- 
ance that  the  wisdom  which  has  governed  and  guided  us  so 
long,  will  still  point  out  to  us  the  path  of  liberty,  tranquil- 
lity, and  safety. 

One  position  we  have  assumed,  and  I  trust  it  will  be 
maintained  with  inflexible  firmness,  —  that  nations  beyond 
this  continent  cannot  be  permitted  to  interfere  with  our  prog- 
ress, so  long  as  there  is  on  our  part  no  violation  of  their 
rights.  I  would  resist,  at  the  outset,  as  matter  of  the 
gravest  offence,  all  indications  of  such  interference.  If  the 
abstract  right  could  be  asserted  on  grounds  of  international 
law,  there  has  been  nothing  in  the  nature  of  our  extension, 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  243 

or  the  means  by  which  it  has  been  accomplished,  to  warrant 
its  application  to  us.  From  the  formation  of  our  govern- 
ment, for  nearly  three  quarters  of  a  century,  military  power 
—  brute  force  —  has  had  no  agency  in  the  conquests  we 
have  achieved.  We  have  overrun  no  provinces  or  countries 
abounding  in  wealth.  Our  capital  has  witnessed  no  tri- 
umphal entries  of  returning  armies,  bearing  with  them  the 
spoils  and  trophies  of  conquest.  Our  ships  have  not  been 
seen  returning  from  subjugated  districts,  freighted  with  the 
tributes  of  an  extended  commerce.  In  the  extension  of  our 
commercial  intercourse  we  have  not,  like  our  Anglo-Saxon 
mother,  been  seen  hewing  down  with  the  sword,  with  unre- 
lenting and  remorseless  determination,  every  obstacle  which 
opposed  itself  to  her  progress.  Our  career  thus  far  has 
been  stained  by  no  such  companionship  with  evil.  Our  con- 
quests have  been  the  peaceful  achievements  of  enterprise  and 
industry,  —  the  one  leading  the  way  into  the  wilderness,  the 
other  following  and  completing  the  acquisition  by  the  formal 
symbols  of  occupancy  and  possession.  They  have  looked  to 
no  objects  beyond  the  conversion  of  uninhabited  wilds  into 
abodes  of  civilization  and  freedom.  Their  only  arms  were 
the  axe  and  the  ploughshare.  The  accumulations  of  wealth 
they  have  brought  were  all  extracted  from  the  bosom  of  the 
earth  by  the  unoffending  hand  of  labor.  If,  in  the  progress 
of  our  people  westward,  they  shall  occupy  territories  not  our 
own,  but  to  become  ours  by  amicable  arrangements  with  the 
governments  to  which  they  belong,  which  of  the  nations  of 
the  earth  shall  venture  to  stand  forth,  in  the  face  of  the 
civilized  world,  and  call  on  us  to  pause  in  this  great  work  of 
human  improvement?  It  is  as  much. the  interest  of  Europe 
as  it  is  ours,  that  we  should  be  permitted  to  follow  undis- 
turbed the  path  which,  in  the  allotment  of  national  fortunes, 
we  seem  appointed  to  tread.  Our  country  has  long  been  a 
refuge  for  those  who  desire  a  larger  liberty  than  they  enjoy 
under  their  own  rulers.  It  is  an  outlet  for  the  political  dis- 
affection of  the   Old   World,  —  for  social  elements  which 


£44  SPEECHES  m  THE  SENATE. 

might  there  have  become  sources  of  agitation,  but  which  are 
here  silently  and  tranquilly  incorporated  into  our  system, 
ceasing  to  be  principles  of  disturbance  as  they  attain  the 
greater  freedom,  which  was  the  object  of  their  separation 
from  less  congenial  combinations  in  other  quarters  of  the 
globe.  Nay,  more ;  it  is  into  the  vast  reservoir  of  the 
western  wilderness,  teeming  with  fruitfulness  and  fertility, 
that  Europe  is  constantly  pouring,  under  our  protection,  her 
human  surpluses,  unable  to  draw  from  her  own  bosom  the 
elements  of  their  support  and  reproduction.  She  is  liter- 
ally going  along  with  us  in  our  march  to  prosperity  and 
power,  to  share  with  us  its  triumphs  and  its  fruits.  Hap- 
pily, this  continent  is  not  a  legitimate  theatre  for  the  political 
arrangements  of  the  sovereigns  of  the  eastern  hemisphere. 
Their  armies  may  range,  undisturbed  by  us,  over  the  plains 
of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  dethroning  monarchs,  parti- 
tioning kingdoms,  and  subverting  republics,  as  interest  or 
caprice  may  dictate.  But  political  justice  demands  that  in 
one  quarter  of  the  globe  self-government,  freedom,  the  arts 
of  peace,  shall  be  permitted  to  work  out,  unmolested,  the 
great  purposes  of  human  civilization. 

Mr.  President,  I  trust  there  will  be  nothing  in  the  final 
adjustment  of  our  difficulties  with  Mexico  to  impair,  in  any 
degree,  the  moral  of  our  example  in  the  past.  Our  course, 
heretofore,  has  been  one  of  perpetual  exertion  to  bring  about 
an  amicable  arrangement  with  her.  I  trust  we  shall  per- 
severe in  the  same  course  of  conduct,  whatever  unvyillingness 
she  may  exhibit  to  come  to  terms.  Entertaining  the  opin- 
ions which  I  have  expressed,  I  naturally  feel  a  deep  solici- 
tude, as  an  American  citizen,  that  our  public  conduct  should 
comport  with  the  dignity  of  the  part  we  seem  destined  to 
perform  in  the  great  drama  of  international  politics.  I  desire 
to  see  our  good  name  unsullied,  and  the  character  we  have 
gained  for  moderation,  justice,  and  scrupulousness  in  the 
discharge  of  our  national  obligations,  maintained  unimpaired. 
In  these,  let  us  be  assured,  our  great  strength  consists :  for 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO.  24^5 

it  is  these  which  make  us  strong  in  the  opinion  of  man- 
kind. 

In  what  I  have  said  concerning  the  progress  of  our  people 
over  the  unpopulated  regions  west  of  us,  and  in  respect  to 
our  responsibilities  as  a  nation,  I  trust  I  shall  have  incurred 
no  imputation  of  inconsistency.  On  the  contrary,  I  trust  I 
shall  be  considered  consistent  in  all  I  have  said.  I  regard 
our  extension,  as  I  have  endeavored  to  foreshadow  it,  to  be 
the  inevitable  result  of  causes,  the  operation  of  which  it  is 
not  in  our  power  to  arrest.  At  the  same  time,  I  hold  it  to 
be  our  sacred  duty  to  see  that  it  is  not  encouraged  or  pro- 
moted by  improper  means.  While  I  should  consider  it  the 
part  of  weakness  to  shrink  from  extension,  under  the  appre- 
hension that  it  might  bring  with  it  the  elements  of  discord 
and  disunion,  as  our  political  boundaries  are  enlarged,  I 
should  hold  it  to  be  the  part  of  folly  and  dishonor  to  attempt 
to  accelerate  it  by  agencies  incompatible  with  our  obligations 
to  other  nations.  It  is  the  dictate  of  wisdom  and  of  duty 
to  submit  ourselves  to  the  operation  of  the  great  causes 
which  are  at  work,  and  which  will  work  on  in  spite  of  us, 
in  carrying  civilization  and  freedom  across  the  American 
continent. 

In  advocating  a  continued  occupation  of  the  cities  and 
territory  we  have  acquired  in  Mexico  until  she  shall  assent 
to  reasonable  terms  of  peace,  I  trust  also  that  I  shall  be 
deemed  consistent  with  myself.  Deprecating  war  as  the 
greatest  of  calamities,  especially  for  us,  I  desire  to  see  this 
war  brought  to  a  close  at  the  earliest  practicable  day.  I  am 
in  favor  of  whatever  measures  are  most  likely  to  accomplish 
this  desirable  end.  I  am  opposed  to  an  abandonment  of  our 
position,  — 

1st.  Because  I  believe  it  would  open  a  field  of  domestic 
dissension  in  Mexico,  which  might  be  fatal  to  her  existence 
as  an  independent  state,  or  make  her  take  refuge  in  the  arms 
of  despotism ; 

2d.  Because  it  might  lead  to  external  interference  in  her 


£46  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

affairs  of  the  most  dangerous  tendency  both  to  her  and 
us ;  and 

8d.  Because  I  fear  that  we  should  only  gain  a  temporary 
suspension  of  hostilities,  to  be  renewed  under  great  disadvan- 
tages to  us,  and  with  every  prospect  of  a  longer  and  more 
sanguinary  contest. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  this  last  consideration  which  weighs 
most  heavily  upon  my  own  mind.  I  hold  it  to  be  indispen- 
sable to  the  public  welfare,  under  all  its  aspects,  that  we 
should  have,  at  the  termination  of  this  contest,  a  solid  and 
stable  peace.  Unpromising  as  the  condition  of  things  seems 
at  the  present  moment,  my  hope  still  is,  that  firmness  tem- 
pered with  prudence  will  give  us,  not  a  mere  outward  paci- 
fication with  secret  irritation  rankling  within,  but  substantial 
concord  and  friendship,  which  shall  leave  no  wound  unhealed. 
And,  sir,  we  should  be  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  an 
accommodation  of  differences  which  will  enable  the  country 
with  confidence  to  lay  aside  its  armor,  and  to  resume  the 
peaceful  pursuits  to  which,  by  the  inexorable  law  of  our 
condition,  we  must  look  for  prosperity  and  safety. 

My  advice,  then,  (if  I  may  presume  to  advsie,)  is,  to 
stand  firm,  holding  ourselves  ready  at  all  times  to  make 
peace,  and  carrying  into  our  negotiations  for  that  purpose  a 
determination  to  cement  a  future  good  understanding  with 
our  adversary,  by  an  adjustment  of  our  differences  on  terms 
of  justice,  moderation,  and  magnanimity. 


MINISTER  TO   THE   PAPAL   STATES. 

MARCH  21, 1848. 

The  motion  to  strike  from  the  Appropriation  Bill  the  item  for  a 
mission  to  the  Papal  States,  being  under  consideration  in  the  Senate, 
Mr.  Dix  said :  — 

I  VOTED  yesterday  against  the  amendment  of  the  Senator 
from  Indiana,^  proposing  a  resident  minister  to  the  Papal 
States.  I  did  so,  because  it  was  brought  forward  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri,^  to 
send  out  a  minister  plenipotentiary.  If  this  motion  to  strike 
out  fails,  and  the  Senator  from  Indiana  moves  his  amend- 
ment again,  I  shall  vote  for  it ;  and  in  stating  my  reasons, 
as  I  propose  to  do  now,  without  waiting  foF  his  motion,  I 
hope  it  will  not  be  considered  out  of  place  if  I  present  some 
statistical  details  in  relation  to  the  condition  of  the  Papal 
States. 

I  desire,  in  the  first  place,  to  say,  that  I  do  not  regard 
this  as  a  political  mission,  unless  the  term  political  be  under- 
stood in  its  largest  sense.  Much  less  do  I  consider  it  a 
religious  mission,  as  the  honorable  Senator  from  North 
Carolina '  would  have  us  regard  it.  I  consider  the  Pope, 
to  all  intents,  as  a  temporal  sovereign.  He  has  been  so  for 
the  last  eleven  hundred  years.  I  believe  the  first  territorial 
possession  of  the  Pope  was  conferred  upon  him  by  Pepin, 
the  father  and  predecessor  of  Charlemagne,  in  the  eighth 
century.  It  consisted  of  the  Duchy  of  Rome,  or,  at  that 
time,  more  properly  called  the  Exarchate  of  Ravenna,  and 
was  wrested  by  the  King  of  France  from  the  Lombards, 
who  had  overrun  northern  and  central  Italy.     It  extended 

1  Mr.  Hannegan.  2  jy^j^  Benton.  ^  Mr.  Badger. 


^48  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

from  the  present  frontier  of  Naples,  on  the  Mediterranean, 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber,  including  the  Southern  Cam- 
pagna  and  the  Pontine  Marshes,  and  running  back  to  the 
Sabine  and  Volscian  hills.  In  the  twelfth  century,  the  Coun- 
tess Matilda,  of  Tuscany,  bequeathed  her  possessions  to  the 
Pope.  They  embraced  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  on  the 
Mediterranean,  extending  from  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber  to 
the  present  frontier  of  Tuscany,  and  the  march  of  Ancona 
on  the  Adriatic,  with  the  adjoining  district  of  Spoleto. 
Large  accessions  were  subsequently  made  by  conquest, — 
Umbria,  Romagna,  Perugia,  Orvieto,  Citta  di  Castello, 
Bologna,  Ravenna,  and  other  cities  and  districts  of  country. 
In  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Duke  of  Urbino  abdicated 
in  favor  of  the  Pope ;  and  at  a  still  later  period,  some 
further  additions  were  made  by  arms.  Thus,  the  territorial 
possessions  of  the  Pope  are  held,  like  those  of  other  sover- 
eigns, by  succession,  donation,  and  conquest.  I  consider  the 
territorial  possessions  of  the  Church  as  much  the  dominions 
of  the  Pope  as  the  territorial  possessions  of  Spain  are  the 
dominions  of  her  Most  Catholic  Majesty ;  and  I  see  no  more 
reason  to  decline  diplomatic  relations  in  the  first  case  than  in 
the  last,  unless  there  is,  in  other  respects,  a  propriety  in 
doing  so. 

It  is  true,  there  is  a  peculiarity  in  the  form  of  the  Papal 
government,  from  the  fact  that  the  temporal  head  of  the 
State  is  also  the  spiritual  head  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  The  Senator  from  North  Carolina  very  justly 
remarked,  that  his  chief  ministers  were  ecclesiastics.  As  is 
well  known,  the  most  important  political  body  in  the  Roman 
States  is  the  Sacred  College  of  the  Cardinals,  who  are  the 
princes  of  the  Church.  They  are  seventy  in  number,  —  the 
same  in  number  as  the  disciples  sent  out  by  the  Great 
Founder  of  the  Christian  faith  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
world.  Six  are  cardinal  bishops,  fifty  cardinal  priests,  and 
fourteen  cardinal  deacons.  I  believe  the  number  has  been 
invariable  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  though  it  is  not 


MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL   STATES.  ^49 

always  full.  All  vacancies  are  filled  by  the  Pope,  who  is 
chosen  by  the  cardinals  from  their  own  body.  The  govern- 
ment is,  therefore,  an  unlimited  elective  monarchy,  or,  if  you 
please,  a  hierarchy,  of  which  the  Pope  is  the  head. 

The  government  is  administered,  under  the  direction  of 
the  Pope,  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  is  a  cardinal.  He 
is  aided  by  several  departments,  bureaus,  or  boards,  the 
chief  of  which  is  the  Camera  Apostolica,  corresponding 
with  our  Treasury  Department.  It  is  under  the  charge  of 
the  Chamberlain,  who  is  assisted  by  a  number  of  cardinals 
and  subordinates  of  different  grades.  There  is  also  the 
Buon  Governo,  charged  with  the  municipal  police  of  the 
States  ;  the  Sacra  Consulta,  to  which  is  intrusted  the  civil 
and  political  administration  of  the  provinces ;  and  the  Sacra 
Ruota,  the  great  court  of  appeals  in  judicial  proceedings. 
There  are  several  more  of  these  boards,  of  which  I  do  not 
remember  the  names  or  the  functions ;  but  they  are  all  under 
the  direction  t)f  cardinals.  The  Chamberlain  is  the  only  one 
of  these  executive  officers  who  is  appointed  for  life ;  and  the 
reason  for  the  distinction  is,  that  he  administers  the  govern- 
ment on  the  death  of  the  Pope  for  nine  days,  when  a  new 
election  takes  place ;  and  during  that  period  he  has  the 
privilege  of  coinmg  money  in  his  own  name.  The  Secre- 
tary of  State,  who  is  the  Prime  Minister  and  the  confi- 
dential adviser  of  the  Pope,  besides  having  the  general 
direction  of  the  administrative  functions  of  the  government, 
presides  especially  over  the  Sacra  Consulta,  or  the  depart- 
ment for  the  provinces,  —  to  give  it  a  name  suited  to  its 
functions. 

There  is  another  class  of  official  dignitaries  of  high  rank 
under  the  Papal  government,  —  the  prelates.  They  are 
always  of  noble  birth,  but  not  always  in  holy  orders.  There 
are  some  two  or  three  hundred  of  these  dignitaries  employed 
in  various  departments  of  the  government,  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tical. The  post  of  prelate  often  opens  the  way  to  higher 
preferment,   and    is  next  in  importance  to  a    membership 

32 


250  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE.  ■ 

1 
of  the  Sacred  College.     These  are  the  great  officers  of  the 

government. 

Mr.  Badger.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  ask  him,  —  for  my  rec- 
ollection is  not  very  accurate,  and  I  am  taking  a  great  deal  of  interest 
in  what  he  is  saying,  and  listening  to  him  with  much  pleasure, — whether 
I  understand  him  correctly  as  saying  that  these  prelates  are  not  always 
in  holy  orders  ?  Are  they  not  either  in  holy  orders  or  else  undergoing 
an  ecclesiastical  apprenticeship,  which  involves  the  design  to  take  holy 
orders  ? 

I  said  they  were  not  always  in  holy  orders,  and  I  believe 
I  am  not  mistaken.  They  usually,  if  not  uniformly,  occupy 
posts  under  the  government.  Some  of  them  are  governors 
of  provinces,  under  the  denomination  of  delegates ;  and 
many  of  them  are  employed  in  the  executive  departments. 
Some  of  them  become  cardinals ;  but  I  should  not  consider 
it  accurate  to  say  of  them  as  a  body  that  they  were  under- 
going an  ecclesiastical  apprenticeship. 

Let  me  now  turn  to  the  political  divisions  of  the  Papal 
States. 

The  Papal  dominions  are  divided  into  twenty  provinces. 
The  first  is  the  Comarca  of  Rome.  The  other  nineteen  are 
divided  into  legations  and  delegations.  The  former  are  six 
in  number,  and  have  each  a  cardinal  to  preside  over  them. 
The  latter  are  thirteen  in  number,  with  prelates  as  their 
presiding  officers.  Each  province  is  divided  into  communes, 
with  peculiarities  of  local  government. 

In  the  provinces,  the  legations  and  delegations  have  a 
council,  (Congregazione  di  Govern o,)  consisting  of  the  Gon- 
faloniere,  or  mayor,  of  the  chief  town,  and  from  two  to  five 
councillors,  according  to  the  magnitude  ^nd  importance  of 
the  province.  They  are  named  by  the  Pope,  and  hold  their 
office  for  five  years.  The  councillors  have  no  vote ;  but 
when  they  differ  in  opinion  from  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
province,  their  reasons  are  reduced  to  writing  and  sent  to 
the  Secretary  of  State. 

Some  of  the  delegations  are  divided  into  districts,  with 
governors    subordinate  to  the  delegate.      Each   district    is 


MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL   STATES.  251 

again  divided  into  communes,  with  their  ancient  magistrates 
and  councils.  These  councils  are  close  corporations,  the 
members  of  which  are  self-elected,  subject  to  the  veto  of  the 
delegate,  and  retain  their  seats  for  life.  A  Gonfaloniere,  or 
mayor,  elected  from  their  own  body  by  themselves,  presides 
over  them.  Of  these  communes  there  are  some  eight  or 
nine  hundred,  if  I  remember  accurately,  with  similar  forms 
of  administration. 

Thus  it  will  be  seent  hat  the  whole  government  is  as 
far  removed  as  possible  from  popular  influence.  It  is  from 
the  centre  to  the  extremities  founded  and  administered  upon 
the  principles  of  a  close  corporation  ;  and  this  is  its  chief 
peculiarity. 

The  administration  of  justice  partakes  of  the  nature  of  the 
political  organization.  It  is  founded  on  the  basis  of  the 
Corpus  juris  civilis  and  the  Corpus  juris  canonici^  —  the 
civil  and  canon  law.  All  criminal  proceedings  are  con- 
ducted with  closed  doors,  and  the  testimony  taken  in  writ- 
ing. The  accused  is  entitled  to  the  aid  of  an  advocate,  called 
the  avvocato  de  poveri,  (the  advocate  of  the  poor,)  who  is 
appointed  by  the  Pope  and  paid  by  the  government.  Im- 
prisonment is  the  chief  punishment  for  crime  ;  fines  are 
rarely  imposed ;  there  is  no  such  thing  as  liberation  on  bail ; 
and  the  whole  administration  of  criminal  justice  is  so  dila- 
tory that  there  are  always  a  very  large  number  of  persons 
imprisoned  and  awaiting  their  trial. 

In  all  I  have  said,  it  will  be  readily  seen  how  much  the 
present  head  of  the  Papal  States  has  to  reform,  —  in  the 
frame  of  the  government,  in  its  administration,  and  in  crim- 
inal jurisprudence.  There  is  no  participation  by  the  people 
in  the  administration  of  public  affairs.  In  Tuscany,  Napo- 
leon introduced  publicity  in  criminal  proceedings,  and  it  has 
survived  all  succeeding  changes  of  the  government.  In 
Rome  it  is  excluded.  Whether  it  was  introduced  there  by 
Napoleon  after  the  deposition  of  the  Pope  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  I  do  not  remember,  but  I 
have  no  doubt  that  it  was. 


g52  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

What  changes  the  Pope  contemplates,  how  far  he  pro-^ 
poses  to  allow  the  people  to  participate  in  the  administration 
of  public  affairs  through  the  choice  of  their  own  magistrates 
and  the  enactment  of  their  own  laws,  I  have  until  very  re- 
cently considered  doubtful,  —  nor  is  the  extent  of  the  reform 
he  contemplates  very  distinctly  understood  now.  It  will  he 
recollected  that  a  few  months  ago  he  called  together  a  council 
of  delegates  from  the  different  provinces.  I  read  his  open- 
ing address  to  them  with  great  care,  supposing  it  would  con- 
tain an  outline  of  the  political  changes  he  contemplated.  He 
stated  that  he  had  called  them  together  for  consultation, 
which  seemed  to  exclude  the  idea  of  legislation  ;  that  extrav- 
agant expectations  had  been  entertained  as  to  his  purposes,  and 
that  he  intended  to  transmit  to  his  successors  unimpaired  the 
authority  he  had  derived  from  those  who  had  preceded  him. 
Not  long  before  this  annunciation  was  received,  I  was  invited 
to  attend  a  public  meeting  in  the  city  of  New  York,  called 
to  express  the  general  sympahty  which  was  felt  in  his  meas- 
ures of  reform.  Not  being  able  to  attend,  I  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  committee  of  arrangements;  and  there  were 
several  other  letters  written  by  gentlemen  of  distinguished 
character,  and  some  of  them  occupying  high  official  stations. 
Not  feeling  at  that  time  quite  sure  of  the  sequel,  I  did  not 
indulge  in  the  enthusiastic  expressions  which  some  of  the 
letters  contained.  I  endeavored  to  render  the  Pope  full 
justice.  I  desire  to  do  so  now.  And  I  must  say  that  the 
recent  intelligence  from  abroad  justifies  all  the  expectations 
which  have  been  entertained  in  respect  to  his  contemplated 
measures  of  reform.  He  has  already  done  much  for  good 
government  in  Italy.  He  arrayed  himself  boldly  at  the 
outset  against  the  influence  of  Austria,  —  an  influence  which, 
since  the  general  pacification  of  Europe,  in  1815,  has  been 
a  perfect  blight  upon  the  growth  and  progress  of  popular 
freedom.  He  has  resisted  fearlessly  the  designs  of  that  gov- 
ernment upon  the  independence  of  the  Roman  people.  He 
has  refused  to  the  Austrian  troops  a  passage  through  his 


MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL   STATES.  258 

dominions  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  King  of  the  Two 
Sicilies  in  putting  down  the  struggles  of  the  Neapolitan  and 
Sicilian  people  against  the  narrow-minded  tyranny  by  which 
they  have  been  oppressed.  He  has  done  more.  He  has 
formed  a  national  guard  in  the  Papal  States;  he  has  put 
arms  into  the  hands  of  the  Roman  people,  and  he  is  prepar- 
ing them  by  military  exercises  for  the  assertion  and  main- 
tenance of  their  own  rights.     He  has,  in  a  word,  given  an 

j  impulse  to  popular  freedom  throughout  Italy ;  and  it  is 
owing  in  a  great  degree  to  him,  that  constitutional  forms  of 
government  have  been  given  to  the  people  of  Sardinia,  Tus- 
cany, and  the  Two  Sicilies. 

The  late  arrival  affords  us  still  more  gratifying  evidence 
of  his  movements.     Two  papers  have  been   put  into    my 

I  hands,  from  which  I  will  read  brief  extracts.     The  first  is 

I  from  a  letter  in  the  '^  Gourrier  des  Etats  Unis,"  dated  in 
Paris,  which  I  will  translate  literally :  — 

"  The  reaction  of  the  revolution  in  Naples  has  been  felt,  as  I  fore- 
saw, in  the   other  parts  of  Italy.     The    King  of  Sardinia   and   the 

II  Grand-Duke  of  Tuscany  have  also  given  to  their  subjects  a  constitu- 
' !  tion,  modelled  after  the  French  Charter.     Pius  the  Ninth  has  prom- 

!  ised,  in  a  proclamation  and  in  conversation  with    those  around  him, 
something  analogous  to  it.     In  the  mean  time,  he  has  changed  his  cabi- 
,  net,  and  has  formed  a  ministry  composed  almost  entirely  of  laymen. 
[i  This  is  a  great  reform." 

The  other  extract  is  from  the  letter  of  the  European  cor- 
[|  respondent  of  the  "  National  Intelligencer,"  published  in  this 
morning's  paper,     I  will  read  it :  — 

I  i  "  The  good  and  conscientious  Pope  has  had  misgivings  as  to  his 
H  power  to  grant  a  reformed  constitution  to  his  people,  fearing  that  his 
doing  so  would  interfere  with  the  oath  which  he  took  at  his  accession 
to  office,  to  hand  down  the  temporalities  of  his  kingdom  uninjured  to 
his  successors.  He  submitted  his  doubts  to  a  council  of  ecclesiastics 
learned  in  such  matters,  and  the  result  is,  a  decision  that  his  yielding 
to  the  wishes  of  the  people  and  the  spirit  of  the  times  will  not  be  an 
infringement  upon  his  official  oath.  It  is  supposed,  therefore,  that  the 
people  of  Rome  will  soon  receive  a  constitution  founded  on  the  same 
principles  as  those  of  Naples,  Sardinia,  and  Florence.     His  Holiness 


£54  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


aflP 


has  advanced  a  great  step,  by  his  employment  of  well-qualified  laym 
in  high  positions  in  the  State,  which  have  hitherto  been  filled  by  eccle- 
siastics. Three  vacancies  lately  occurred,  and  three  liberal-minded 
laymen  succeeded  three  churchmen.  How  much  does  the  world  owe 
to  Pius  IX  !  His  liberal  conduct  first  put  the  ball  of  reform  in  mo- 
tion :  it  is  not  destined  to  stop  until  it  has  regenerated  Europe." 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Roman  people  are  to  receive 
from  the  Pope  a  constitutional  government.  And,  what  I 
consider  of  great  importance  as  a  measure  of  reform,  he  has 
already  begun  to  introduce  laymen  into  his  political  councils. 
At  the  general  pacification,  in  1815,  it  was  understood  that 
the  chief  ministers  of  the  Pope  were  to  be  chosen  from  the 
laity.  This  understanding  was  violated;  and  it  has  been 
one  of  the  leading  causes  of  public  discontent  in  the  Papal 
States.  It  has  been  for  a  very  long  period  one  of  the  re- 
forms most  earnestly  sought  for ;  and  it  may  be  hailed  as 
the  precursor  of  an  ultimate  separation  of  the  ecclesiastic 
and  secular  branches  of  the  Papal  government,  by  confer- 
ring political  offices  on  laymen,  and  confining  churchmen  to 
the  exercise  of  their  ecclesiastical  functions,  —  an  arrange- 
ment favorable  alike  to  the  Church  and  the  State,  by  pro- 
moting the  purity  of  the  one  and  the  prosperity  of  the  other. 

While  the  Pope  has  much  to  reform,  he  has  much  to  con- 
tend against  —  not  only  from  the  opposition  of  those  who 
are  hostile  to  all  progress,  but  from  the  embarrassed  condi- 
tion of  the  finances  of  the  Papal  States.  Some  ten  years 
ago,  the  revenues  were  about  nine  millions  of  dollars ;  two 
millions  and  a  half  were  derived  from  internal  taxes,  chiefly 
on  landed  property ;  about  four  millions  and  a  half  from  the 
customs,  excise,  &c. ;  about  nine  hundred  thousand  dollars 
from  lotteries,  and  the  residue  from  miscellaneous  sources. 
Some  of  these  revenues  were  collected  at  an  enormous  ex- 
pense. The  revenue  from  lotteries,  for  instance,  which 
yielded  nine  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  the  gross,  cost 
about  six  hundred  thousand  in  the  collection,  leaving  only 
three  hundred  thousand  in  the  treasury  as  an  offset  to  the 


MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL   STATES.  ^^^ 

general  demoralization  of  which  they  were  the  cause.  In 
the  same  year,  the  expenditures  exceeded  the  revenues  about 
half  a  million  of  dollars.  Four  years  ago,  I  understood  the 
deficiency  exceeded  a  million,  and  the  preceding  year  a  mil- 
Hon  and  a  half.  From  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  statistical 
information,  I  could  not  ascertain  the  amount  of  the  public 
debt ;  but  from  the  interest  paid  on  it,  amounting  to  about 
two  millions  and  a  half  of  dollars,  exceeding  one  quarter  of 
the  entire  revenue  of  the  Papal  States,  it  must  have  exceeded 
forty  millions  of  dollars.  It  cannot  now,  I  think,  be  less 
than  fifty  millions.     It  may  be  much  more. 

Sir,  this  is  a  very  heavy  pecuniary  burden  for  a  small 
state.  The  whole  superficial  area  of  the  Papal  States  is 
about  thirteen  thousand  square  miles,  —  less  than  one  third 
the  area  of  the  State  of  New  York ;  and  a  population,  ac- 
cording to  the  raccolta^  or  census,  of  1888,  of  two  million 
seven  hundred  thousand  souls, —  about  the  same  as  the  popu- 
lation of  New  York.  While  Rome  has  two  hundred  and 
ten  inhabitants  to  a  square  mile,  from  the  difference  in  sur- 
face. New  York  has  but  sixty.  The  population  of  the 
Papal  States  is  very  unequally  distributed.  Only  about  one 
third  of  the  surface  is  cultivated,  and  a  considerable  portion 
is  very  thinly  inhabited.  I  doubt  whether  the  population 
has  much  increased  during  the  last  fifteen  years.  In  1888, 
the  city  of  Rome  had  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
inhabitants;  in  1888,  it  had  less  than  one  hundred  and  forty- 
nine  thousand,  —  a  slight  decrease. 

The  Papal  States  have  some  commerce ;  but  little  is  car- 
ried on  in  her  own  vessels.  There  are  but  two  harbors  for 
vessels  of  any  considerable  burden,  —  Civita  Vecchia,  on  the 
Mediterranean,  and  Ancona,  on  the  Adriatic.  The  excel- 
lence of  both  ports  is  due,  in  a  good  degree,  to  the  Emperor 
Trajan.  There  were  other  valuable  ports  once,  but  they 
have  become  useless  for  large  vessels.  Terracina,  the  an- 
cient capital  of  the  Volsci,  was  formerly  a  naval  station  of 
great  importance ;  but  it  is  now  obstructed  by  deposits  of 


23Q  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

sand.  The  Porto  d*Anzo,  —  the  ancient  Antium,  —  about 
midway  between  Terracina  and  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber,  is 
also  obstructed,  and  nearly  useless,  from  the  same  cause. 

There  is  but  one  navigable  river  in  the  Papal  States  — 
the  Tiber.  As  there  have  been  some  allusions  to  it  in  the 
course  of  the  debate,  I  hope  I  shall  be  excused  if  I  make 
some  references  also  to  its  condition  as  to  commerce  and 
navigability.  It  empties  into  the  Mediterranean  seventeen 
miles  from  Rome.  As  it  approaches  the  sea,  it  divides  into 
two  channels.  On  the  left  arm  stood  the  ancient  Ostia.  It 
has  long  since  fallen  into  ruins,  and  a  modern  Ostia  stands 
near  it ;  but,  from  the  unhealthiness  of  the  place,  it  is  almost 
deserted,  and  the  channel  of  the  river  is  nearly  filled  up. 
The  right  arm  is  navigable  to  the  sea.  On  this  channel 
stood  the  ancient  city  of  Portus  ;  but  only  the  ruins  are 
now  visible,  and  the  modern  town  of  Fiumicino  has  risen  up 
a  mile  and  a  half  below.  The  channel  is  narrow,  deep,  and 
rapid.  The  description  of  Virgil,  as  he  makes  -Slneas  first 
see  the  Tiber,  is  still  applicable  to  it.  I  do  not  know  that  I 
can  quote  him  accurately,  but  if  I  do  not,  there  are  gentle- 
men of  classical  learning  on  both  sides  of  the  Chamber  who 
will  correct  me :  — 

—  "fluvio  Tiberinus  amoeno, 
Vorticibus  rapidis  et  multa  flavus  arena, 
In  mare  pronimpit." 

The  description  is  not  inaccurate :  with  rapid  whirlpools, 
and  yellow  with  earth,  it  bursts  into  the  sea.  The  current  is 
so  rapid  that  vessels  could  only  stem  it  with  strong  winds ; 
but  they  are  now  towed  up  by  steamers.  Vessels  of  small 
size  —  among  them  a  steamer  —  go  up  to  Rome,  and  at 
some  seasons  there  is  a  good  deal  of  freighting  done  on  the 
river.  Indeed,  it  is  navigable  for  boats  to  its  junction  with 
the  Nera,  some  forty  miles  above.  But  from  the  rapidity 
of  the  current  near  the  city  and  below,  deposits  of  sand  are 
constantly  obstructing  the  passage,  and  an  annual  appropria- 
tion of  money  is  made  to  keep  it  open. 


MINISTER  TO   THE  PAPAL   STATES.  ^5^ 

The  exports  of  the  Papal  States  are  not  large,  but  they 
are  numerous.  They  consist  of  corn,  oil,  silk,  skins,  fruits, 
woad  (a  substitute  for  indigo,  which  grows  spontaneously  in 
southern  Italy,)  hemp,  &c.  Wool  is  exported  in  large  quan- 
tities to  England ;  and  among  other  exports  is  tobacco,  of 
which  they  send  abroad  annually  about  three  hundred  thou- 
sand pounds. 

They  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  a  commercial  marine. 
Some  ninety  vessels,  averaging  probably  about  eighty  tons 
each,  constitute  the  whole,  excepting  fishing-smacks,  and 
small  coasters.  There  are  six  merchant- vessels  in  the  city 
of  New  York  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  exceeding  that  of 
the  ninety  merchant-vessels  of  the  Roman  States.  This, 
however,  we  need  not  regret ;  for  if  we  can  extend  our  com- 
mercial relations  with  them,  we  shall  do  all  the  carrying, 
both  for  them  and  ourselves. 

Agriculture,  the  basis  of  all  industry,  is  in  a  very  de- 
pressed state,  and  from  peculiar  causes.  The  great  peculiar- 
ity of  the  agriculture  of  the .  Papal  States  is  the  division  of 
the  champaign  land  into  immense  farms.'  The  Campagna 
around  Rome,  called  the  "  Agro  Romano,"  (the  Roman 
field,)  the  Maremma,  extending  from  the  frontier  of  Tuscany, 
along  the  coast,  to  the  southward,  and  the  low  lands  in 
other  districts,  are  owned  by  a  few  persons.  The  farms  usu- 
ally contain  several  thousand  acres.  The  entire  Agro  Ro- 
mano, comprising  more  than  one  fifth  of  the  Campagna, 
contains  over  eight  hundred  and  fifty  square  miles.  This 
tract  is  in  the  hands  of  about  forty  farmers,  or  "  Mercanti 
di  Campagna,"  as  they  are  called.  The  farms  are  worked 
on  the  "  Mezzeria  "  system,  or  at  halves,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  fattori^  or  stewards,  who  occupy  farm-houses  on  the 
land,  while  the  owners  live  in  the  cities.  The  same  sys- 
tem prevails  in  Tuscany,  where  it  has  worked  tolerably 
well.  In  Rome  it  is  thought  exceedingly  unfavorable  to 
agricultural  improvement.  Something  is  attributable  to  the 
peculiarity  of  the  Roman  plain,  in  respect  to  climate  and 
33 


25S  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

health,  which  renders  it  necessary  to  devote  the  greater  part 
to  grazing.  In  the  winter  it  is  covered  with  cattle  and 
sheep,  —  not  less  perhaps  than  a  million  of  both,  —  under  the 
guardianship  of  shepherds  and  herdsmen.  As  the  summer 
advances,  the  Campagna  becomes  too  unhealthy  to  be  in- 
habited, and  the  cattle  are  driven  to  the  Sabine  hills,  and 
even  to  the  mountains  of  the  Abruzzi.  When  the  harvest 
season  arrives,  the  heat  becomes  almost  intolerable ;  and 
multitudes  of  the  laborers,  who  come  down  from  the  moun- 
tains to  gather  the  harvest,  perish  from  the  fatal  effects  of 
the  malaria.  As  soon  as  the  grain  is  gathered,  the  Cam- 
pagna becomes  a  desert  until  the  summer  heats  are  over. 
Neither  men  nor  cattle  are  to  be  seen.  The  buffalo,  who 
seem  to  be  proof  against  the  heavy  pestilential  vapors  which 
the  burning  sun  brings  out  from  the  humid  earth,  are  almost 
the  only  inhabitants  of  the  deserted  plain  from  June  to 
October. 

With  this  imperfect  agriculture,  a  complete  monopoly  is 
given  to  the  rural  proprietors  by  the  corn-laws  of  the  Papal 
States.  When  the  price  of  flour  on  the  Mediterranean  is 
under  $9,  and  on  the  Adriatic  $8.25  per  barrel,  the  introduc- 
tion is  prohibited.  It  is  the  same  with  wheat.  When  it 
is  under  about  $1.40  the  bushel  on  the  Mediterranean,  or 
$1.20  on  the  Adriatic,  it  is  not  allowed  to  be  introduced. 
The  operation  of  this  system  is  to  give  the  entire  market  to 
the  Roman  agriculturist,  and,  by  excluding  the  cheaper  bread- 
stuffs  of  the  Levant  and  the  Austrian  provinces  on  the  east- 
ern shore  of  the  Adriatic,  to  compel  the  Roman  people  in 
some  districts,  and  in  times  of  scarcity,  to  eat  dear  bread. 

Notwithstanding  the  depressed  condition  of  the  Papal 
States,  there  is  no  country  capable  of  a  more  rich  or  varied 
production ;  and  if  the  measures  of  reform  now  in  progress 
shall  be  carried  out,  and  the  social  as  well  as  the  political 
condition  of  the  people  be  elevated  by  the  abrogation  of  bad 
laws,  I  know  no  state  of  the  same  magnitude  which  may 
hope  for  a  higher  prosperity. 


MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL  STATES.       25Q 

I  have  thus,  Mr.  President,  presented  some  statistical 
details  in  respect  to  the  condition  of  the  Papal  States,  not 
with  the  expectation  of  influencing  the  vote  of  any  Senator 
on  this  floor,  but  for  the  purpose  of  assigning  the  grounds 
on  which  I  place  my  own.  I  am  in  favor  of  establishing 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  Rome,  first,  with  a  view  to 
friendly  relations,  —  the  object  for  which  most  missions  are 
created;  and  second,  with  a  view  to  commerce.  I  repeat,  I 
do  not  regard  the  mission  as  political,  unless  that  term  be 
understood  in  its  broadest  sense ;  and  in  this  view  all 
missions  are  political.  I  consider  it  our  sacred  duty  to  keep 
aloof  from  the  internal  agitations  of  European  states,  and 
from  the  movements  of  their  sovereigns  and  people.  We 
must  sympathize  with  everything  that  is  favorable  to  freedom ; 
but  we  can  do  no  more.  Our  rule  of  action  is  non-interven- 
tion in  the  political  concerns  of  the  eastern  hemisphere,  and 
by  a  rigid  adherence  to  it  we  may  with  the  more  confidence 
insist  on  an  application  of  the  same  principle  by  European 
states  to  the  political  concerns  of  the  independent  communi- 
ties on  this  continent.  I  look,  then,  first  to  friendly  relations 
with  central  Italy. 

y  Put  I  look  chiefly  to  commerce.  Depressed  as  the  indus- 
try of  Rome  is,  1  think  something  may  be  done  to  extend 
our  commercial  relations  and  intercourse  with  her,  and  per- 
haps also  with  Tuscany,  lying  on  her  borders.  Great  Britain 
has  an  immense  trade  with  the  Mediterranean.  She  sends 
every  year  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  in  value  of  her  own 
products  into  Italy  alone,  and  probably  several  milUons  more 
of  foreign  products,  which  she  imports  for  reexportation. 
A  portion  of  this  lucrative  trade  legitimately  should  be  ours ; 
and  I  think  we  may  obtain  it,  if  we  send  a  discreet  and  intel- 
ligent man  to  Italy. 

I  voted  for  a  minister  plenipotentiary,  as  proposed  by  the 
Senator  from  Missouri,^  supposing  it  would  be  followed,  if 
his  amendment  had  prevailed,  by  a  proposition  to  abolish  the 

1  Mr.  Benton. 


260  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

post  of  charge  d'affaires  at  Naples.  The  post  of  charge 
d'affaires  at  Turin  I  would  not  have  touched.  Sardinia  is 
distant,  and  has  distinct  commercial  interests.  But  we  might 
have  sent  a  minister  with  full  powers  to  central  and  south- 
ern Italy,  to  reside  a  part  of  the  time  at  Rome,  and  part  of 
the  time  at  Naples, — ^an  arrangement  not  unprecedented  in 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  states  bordering  on  each  other. 
I  thought,  in  opening  diplomatic  intercourse  with  Rome,  it 
should  be  done  in  the  mode  most  acceptable.  A  minister  is 
accredited  to  the  sovereign  of  the  country  to  which  he  is  sent, 
— a  charge  d'affaires  to  the  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  or 
the  chief  executive  department.  A  minister  would  be  on  a 
footing  with  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  the  states  of 
Europe,  at  the  Papal  Court,  —  a  charge  will  be  inferior  in 
grade  and  in  influence.  Rome  and  Naples  are  but  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  miles  apart.  Four  years  ago,  a  railroad  was 
in  a  course  of  construction  from  Naples  to  the  Roman  fron- 
tier. It  was  nearly  finished  to  Capua.  Gregory  XVI.,  the 
predecessor  of  the  present  Pope,  refused  to  charter  railroad 
companies.  He  did  not  encourage  foreign  intercourse,  social 
or  commercial.  Pius  IX.  is  of  a  totally  different  temper. 
He  is  desirous  of  promoting  in  every  way  facilities  for  com- 
munication, foreign  and  domestic.  He  has  chartered  a  com- 
pany to  construct  a  railway  to  Civita  Vecchia  ;  and  another, 
as  I  understand,  to  meet  the  Neapolitan  railroad  at  Terracina. 
In  two  years  Rome  and  Naples  will  probably  be  but  five 
hours  apart.  The  arrangement  suggested  would,  therefore, 
have  been  convenient  as  well  as  proper.  But,  as  the  prop- 
osition failed,  I  shall  vote  for  a  minister  resident. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  relig- 
ious question.  I  have  already  said,  I  do  not  regard  this,  in 
any  sense,  as  a  religious  mission ;  nor  can  I  conceive  that  it 
can  be  properly  so  considered.  Gentlemen  have  gone  so  far 
as  to  suppose  that  it  will  be  repugnant  to  the  Protestant  feel- 
ing  of  the  country.  I  cannot  believe  there  is  any  just  ground 
for  such  an  apprehension.     We  send  a  diplomatic  represent- 


MINISTER  TO  THE  PAPAL  STATES.       261 

ative  to  the  Emperor  of  China,  who  claims  to  be  the  sole 
vicegerent  of  the  Supreme  Being  on  earth.  We  have  a 
minister  at  Constantinople,  and  three  consuls,  salaried  officers, 
exercising  diplomatic  functions,  in  Africa, —  two  in  the  Bar- 
bary  States,  and  one  in  the  empire  of  Morocco ;  and  the 
people  of  all  these  countries  are  either  Turks,  Moors,  Arabs, 
Berbers,  or  Jews, —  all  utterly  denying  the  authenticity  of 
the  Christian  faith.  And  yet,  when  we  propose  to  send  a 
diplomatic  representative  to  a  temporal  sovereign  in  Europe, 
it  is  objected  that  the  Protestant  feeling  of  the  country  may 
be  wounded,  because  he  is  also  the  head  of  a  most  respect- 
able and  important  branch  of  the  Christian  church.  Sir,  I 
cannot  comprehend  this  feeling,  and  I  am  therefore  disposed 
to  doubt  its  existence.  At  all  events  I  shall  vote  for  the 
appropriation,  and  trust  to  my  Protestant  friends  for  a  just 
appreciation  of  my  motives. 


CALIFORNIA   CLAIMS. 

MARCH  29, 1848. 

Mr.  Dix  addressed  the  Senate  as  follows :  — 

Mr.  President  :  The  transactions  out  of  which  the  claims 
provided  for  by  the  bill  under  consideration  arose,  were  ex- 
plained yesterday  in  the  brief  but  very  pertinent  and  lucid 
remarks  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan,-^  as  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  before  which 
the  testimony  substantiating  the  case  was  taken.  I  hold 
in  my  hand  the  printed  document  containing  this  testimony, 
and  before  I  sit  down  I  will  read  some  portions  of  it  to  the 
Senate, 'though  I  may  perhaps  but  present  what  is  familiar 
to  all. 

I  do  not  know  that  any  explanation  further  than  that 
which  has  already  been  given  by  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Michigan  is  necessary  to  vindicate  the  propriety  of  passing 
the  bill.  The  pecuniary  obligations,  for  the  discharge  of 
which  it  provides,  were  contracted  in  good  faith,  for  the 
purpose  of  subduing  the  country  and  of  expelling  from  it 
the  military  forces  of  Mexico.  In  the  execution  of  these 
objects,  the  young  and  accomplished  officer  at  the  head  of 
our  troops.  Colonel  Fremont,  exhibited  a  combination  of 
energy,  promptitude,  sagacity,  and  prudence,  which  indi- 
cates the  highest  capacity  for  civil  and  military  command ; 
and,  in  connection  with  what  he  has  done  for  the  cause  of 
science,  it  has  given  him  a  reputation  at  home  and  abroad 
of  which  men  much  older  and  more  experienced  than  him- 
self might  well  be  proud.     That  the  country  will  do  justice 

1  Mr.  Cass. 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS.  268 

to  his  valuable  and  distinguished  services  I  entertain  not 
the  slightest  doubt. 

The  objects  accomplished  by  Colonel  Fremont,  as  subse- 
quent developments  have  shown,  were  far  more  important 
than  those  I  have  referred  to.  There  is  no  doubt  that  his 
rapid  and  decisive  movements  kept  California  out  of  the 
hands  of  British  subjects,  and  perhaps  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  British  government ;  and  it  is  in  this  point  of  view 
that  I  desire  to  present  the  subject  to  the  Senate.  If  these 
transactions  stood  alone,  if  they  constituted  an  isolated  case, 
I  might  not  deem  it  necessary  to  call  attention  to  them. 
But  as  a  part  of  a  system  to  all  appearances  deliberately  en- 
tered upon  and  steadily  pursued,  it  seems  to  me  that  they 
may  justly  claim  a  more  extensive  consideration  than  would 
otherwise  be  due  to  them. 

While  discussing  the  bill  to  raise  an  additional  military 
force  in  January  last,  I  stated  some  facts  in  illustration  of 
the  encroachments  of  Great  Britain  on  the  southern  portion 
of  the  North  American  continent.  I  alluded  particularly 
to  her  movements  on  the  Mosquito  coast,  where  she  is  estab- 
lishing herself  under  the  pretence  of  giving  protection  to  an 
insignificant  tribe  of  Indians,  but  in  reality  to  gain  posses- 
sion of  a  territory  not  only  intrinsically  valuable  on  account 
of  its  natural  products,  but  doubly  so  to  her  on  account 
of  its  advantages  of  position.  This  occupation  does  not 
rest  upon  the  ground  of  an  original  establishment  on  terri- 
tory unreclaimed  from  its  primeval  solitude,  or  even  on 
territory  not  reduced  to  actual  possession  by  its  first  dis- 
coverer. It  is  a  portion  of  the  old  Spanish  dominion  in 
North  America,  constituting,  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
empire  of  Spain  in  the  western  hemisphere,  a  part  of  the 
confederation  of  Central  America,  and  now  an  integral  part 
of  the  states  of  Honduras  and  Nicaragua :  and  if  the  power 
of  Spain  had  continued  unbroken,  this  unjustifiable  en- 
croachment would  not  have  been  heard  of.  I  stated  on  a  for- 
mer occasion  that  the  territory  occupied  in.  the  name  of  the 


£64  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

Mosquito  nation  by  Great  Britain  contains  about  40,000 
square  miles, —  nearly  as  large  a  surface  as  that  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  —  and  that  she  had  recently  sought  to  ex- 
tend her  possession  by  forcible  means  to  the  river  San  Juan 
de  Nicaragua,  near  the  eleventh  parallel  of  latitude,  one 
degree  further  south  than  the  territory  actually  claimed  as 
belonging  to  the  Mosquitoes  according  to  her  own  geograph- 
ical delineations. 

Nearly  a  century  ago  some  connection  existed  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  Mosquito  Indians  ;  but  the  territory 
was  abandoned  by  her  under  treaty-stipulations  with  Spain, 
When  the  connection  was  renewed  I  am  unable  to  say  ;  but 
I  believe  the  first  open  and  avowed  attempt  to  exercise  rights 
of  sovereignty  over  the  territory,  through  consular  agents, 
was  in  1848,  when  Mr.  Patrick  Walker  was  appointed 
consul  at  Bluefields  ;  and  this  appointment  was  instantly  the 
subject  of  a  protest  by  at  least  one  of  the  South  American 
states. 

Before  I  proceed  to  give  the  details  of  this  encroachment, 
I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  position 
taken  by  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  nearly  twenty- 
five  years  ago,  in  respect  to  the  future  colonization  of  this 
continent  by  European  powers. 

In  the  annual  message  of  Mr.  Monroe  to  Congress,  in 
December,  1823,  he  stated,  that,  in  the  discussion  of  th< 
respective  rights  of  Great  Britain,  Russia,  and  the  Unite< 
States,  on  the  northwestern  coast  of  America,  the  occasioi 
had  "  been  judged  proper  for  asserting  as  a  principle,  in 
which  the  rights  of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the 
American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition 
which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are  henceforth 
not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by 
any  European  powers."  In  the  same  message  it  was  de- 
clared, that  we  should  regard  any  attempt  on  the  part  of 
European  powers  to  extend  their  political  "  system  to  any 
portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS.  265 

safety."  "  With  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any 
European  powers,"  says  the  message,  "  we  have  not  inter- 
fered, and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  governments 
who  have  declared  their  independence,  and  maintained  it, 
and  whose  independence  we  have,  on  great  consideration 
and  on  just  principles,  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view 
any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or 
controlling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  Euro- 
pean power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of 
an  unfriendly  disposition  towards  the  United  States." 

The  two  positions  assumed  by  the  Executive  of  the 
United  States  were,  — 

1.  That  there  must  be  no  further  colonization  on  either 
of  the  American  continents  by  any  European  power ;  and, 

2.  That  there  must  be  no  interference  by  European 
powers  with  the  independent  states  in  this  hemisphere. 

And  these  declarations  were  accompanied  by  the  disa- 
vowal on  our  part  of  all  intention  to  interfere  with  existing 
colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European  power  on  this 
continent. 

Of  the  wisdom  or  policy  of  these  declarations,  I  have 
nothing  to  say ;  though  I  must  add,  that  1  have  always 
considered  the  publication  of  manifestoes,  which  the  govern- 
ment putting  them  forth  is  not  prepared  to  maintain  at  all 
hazards,  as  calculated  to  detract  from  its  dignity  and  influ- 
ence. 

Mr.  Monroe's  declarations  have  not  been  maintained. 
They  applied  to  South  as  well  as  North  America;  and 
during  the  last  five  years,  the  Banda  Oriental  and  the 
Argentine  Confederation  have  been  the  theatre  of  an  armed 
intervention,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  at  first,  and  ulti- 
mately of  Great  Britain  and  France,  which  is  almost  unpre- 
cedented in  the  history  of  nations,  as  a  violation  of  the 
right  of  every  community  to  regulate  its  domestic  concerns 
in  its  own  way,  without  external  interference.  I  will  not 
detain  the  Senate  by  entering  into  the  details  of  these  trans- 

34 


266  SPEECHES  m  THE  SENATE. 

actions.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that,  in  1838,  in  consequence  of 
internal  dissensions  in  the  Banda  Oriental,  or  the  Oriental 
Republic  of  Uruguay,  fomented  by  foreign  officers  and  resi- 
dents in  Montevideo,  General  Oribe,  the  President,  resigned, 
and  fled  to  Buenos  Ayres,  his  rival,  General  Reveira,  suc- 
ceeding to  his  political  post.  In  1842,  Oribe  entered  the 
Banda  Oriental,  drove  Reveira  into  Brazil,  and  besieged  his 
general  (Paez)  in  Montevideo,  which  was  subsequently  in- 
vested by  sea  by  the  Argentine  fleet.  The  interposition  of 
Admiral  Purvis,  commanding  the  British  fleet,  when  the 
admiral  of  the  French  fleet  refused  to  interfere,  on  the 
ground  that  such  interference  would  violate  well-established 
principles  of  international  law,  has  had  the  effect  of  pro- 
longing for  five  years  a  war  which  would  otherwise  have 
been  speedily  decided,  and  led  to  a  violation  of  every  rule 
of  international  duty,  through  a  further  intervention  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Argentine  Confederation,  by  the  combined 
fleets  of  France  and  Great  Britain,  under  the  sanction  of 
their  respective  governments.  Those  who  desire  to  know 
more  of  these  transactions  will  find  a  most  interesting  dis- 
cussion in  the  British  House  of  Lords,  in  the  Parliamentary 
Debates  of  1845,  Vol.  88,  page  1152.  In  reply  to  some 
inquiries  proposed  by  Lord  Beaumont,  the  Earl  of  Aber- 
deen made  the  defence  of  the  Ministry.  He  was  followed 
by  Lord  Colchester,  who  had  been  at  the  Rio  de  la  Plata,  and 
who  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  all  that  had  taken  place. 
He  corrected  many  of  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen's  statements; 
and  I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  he  left  to  the  Ministry  a 
most  unsatisfactory  ground  of  defence.  On  the  principles 
laid  down  by  Mr.  Monroe,  it  would  have  Been  the  duty  of 
the  United  States  to  interpose  for  the  purpose  of  protecting 
the  Oriental  and  Argentine  republics  from  this  flagrant  inva- 
sion of  their  rights  as  sovereign  and  independent  states. 
We  have  failed  to  do  so,  I  do  not  say  whether  rightly  or 
not;  but  the  impolicy  of  making  declarations  which  we 
are  not  prepared  to  maintain  is  strongly  exemplified  in  our 
inaction. 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS. 


S67 


In  the  annual  message  of  the  President  to  Congress,  in 
December,  1846,  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Monroe  were 
reiterated,  but  the  application  of  the  principles  he  asserted 
was  virtually  restricted  to  the  continent  of  North  America. 
Whatever  hesitancy  there  may  be  in  extending  the  applica- 
tion further,  to  this  extent  its  assertion  and  maintenance  at 
all  hazards  can  afford,  it  appears  to  me,  no  ground  for  a 
difference  of  opinion  ;  and,  so  believing,  it  was  with  great 
pleasure  that  I  listened  to  the  spirited  remarks  of  the  honor- 
able Senator  from  Delaware-^  on  this  subject,  at  the  close 
of  the  debate  on  the  bill  to  raise  an  additional  military 
force.  Our  own  security  depends,  in  no  inconsiderable 
degree,  on  the  tranquillity  of  the  states  bordering  on  us, 
or  in  our  neighborhood.  The  interference  of  European 
powers  in  their  affairs  can  have  no  other  effect  but  to  pro- 
duce distractions  dangerous  alike  to  them  and  to  us.  We 
have  a  right  to  insist,  then,  on  the  principle  of  non-interven- 
tion on  this  continent, —  a  principle  lying  at  the  very  founda- 
tion of  all  national  independence,  —  a  principle  which  cannot 
be  violated  without  offending  against  the  common  welfare 
and  the  common  interest  of  the  whole  civilized  world.  In 
connection  with  this  subject,  I  desire  to  say  that  I  have 
always  insisted,  in  the  most  earnest  manner,  on  the  duty  of 
non-interference  on  our  part  with  the  affairs  of  European 
states.  I  consider  it  the  more  imperative  now,  when  great 
political  changes  are  taking  place,  and  when  the  whole 
continent  of  Europe  may  be  convulsed  to  its  centre. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  encroachments  of  Great 
Britain  in  North  America  possess  an  importance  which  can- 
not be  exaggerated.  I  begin  with  Central  America,  and 
shall  pass  on  to  California,  where  we  have  had  recent  evi- 
dence of  a  deliberate  design  to  obtain  possession  of  the 
country,  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  us. 

In  February  last,  I  received  a  letter  from  a  friend  in 
New  York, —  a  gentleman  of  high  respectability,  extensively 

1  Mr.  Clayton. 


26S  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

engaged  in  commercial  transactions,  chiefly  with  Central  and 
South  America,  and  who  formerly  held  a  seat  in  the  House 
of  Representatives, —  stating  that  he  had  noticed  my  allu- 
sion to  the  affairs  of  the  Mosquito  coast,  and  that  he  could 
give  me  some  information  on  the  subject,  if  I  desired  it.  I 
immediately  made  the  request,  and  received  from  him,  about 
a  month  ago,  a  letter,  which  I  will  read  to  the  Senate :  — 

"  New  York,  February  28,  1848. 

"  Dear  Sir  :  Your  favor  of  the  25th  instant  is  received.  In  compli- 
ance with  your  request,  I  have  hastily  drawn  up  the  outlines  of  the 
information  alluded  to. 

"  In  August,  1645,  Mr.  James  S.  Bell  visited  New  York,  and  was 
introduced  to  me  as  a  person  having  great  commercial  advantages  at 
the  English  settlement  of  Bluefields,  Mosquito  nation,  Central  America, 
and  who  desired  to  form  a  connection  with  a  house  at  New  York,  by 
which  these  advantages  could  be  made  available  for  commercial  en- 
terprise. Having  at  that  time  much  business  at  Balize  and  Truxillo,  I 
was  ready  to  listen  to  propositions  for  increasing  my  trade  with  that 
country,  especially  to  receive  the  valuable  information  which  I  was 
told  Mr.  B.  could  impart.  Mr.  Bell  stated  he  was  the  Secretary  to  the 
British  consulate  at  Bluefields,  which  he  assured  me  was  really  the  gov- 
ernment de  facto  of  the  Mosquito  nation,  —  a  tribe  of  dissolute  and  de- 
graded Indians,  whose  king,  a  lad  of  fourteen,  was  an  inmate  of  the 
consul-house,  and  dependent  on  that  functionary  for  the  necessaries  of 
life ;  that  the  Mosquito  country  had  been  privately  conveyed  to  the 
British  government,  and  that  that  claim,  when  questioned,  could  be 
maintained  by  a  legal  title  of  purchase  from  the  king ;  that  the  ob- 
ject of  the  British  government  was  not  only  the  possession  of  this  ter- 
ritory, which  abounded  with  rich  forests  of  mahogany,  and  other  valu- 
able woods,  on  the  coast,  and  many  miles  in  the  interior  on  navigable 
rivers,  but  at  the  proper  time  to  show,  prove,  and  maintain  by  force  of ' 
arms,  if  necessary,  the  Mosquito  (their  own)  title  to  as  far  south  as  10** 
of  north  latitude,  comprising  San  Juan  and  the  rich  country  of  Lake 
Nicaragua,  thus  securing  the  best  route  to  the  Pacific,  as  well  as  by  far 
the  most  fertile  and  productive  of  all  that  section  of  Central  America ; 
that  he  (Mr.  Bell)  had  made  two  visits,  accompanied  by  skilful  sur- 
veyors and  engineers,  to  San  Juan,  and  thence  to  the  interior,  and  to  the 
Lake  Nicaragua,  for  purposes  of  exploration,  &c.,  by  order  of  the  gov- 
ernment, conveyed  privately  to  Mr.  Walker,  the  consul  at  Bluefields ; 
that  he  came  to  the  United  States  to  effect  on  his  individual  account  a 
connection  with  some  mercantile  house,  by  which  to  establish  branches 
at  Bluefields  and  at  San  Juan,  in  advance  of  its  becoming  a  British 


CALIFOKNIA  CLAIMS.  ggg 

port ;  that  he  had  received  an  exclusive  grant  for  the  cutting  of  mahog- 
any on  Bluefields  river  and  adjacent  coast ;  that  this  connection  with, 
and  intimate  relation  to,  the  consulate  at  Bluefields,  alias  the  Mos- 
quito government,  would  give  him  such  advantages  at  San  Juan,  that  he 
could  nearly  monopolize  the  interior  trade  of  that  place,  and  ship  to  the 
United  States  large  quantities  of  spice,  indigo,  cochineal,  hides,  &c.,  in 
exchange  for  cotton  goods,  flour,  &c. 

"  Mr.  Bell,  by  written  documents  and  letters,  satisfied  me  fully  of  the 
truth  of  his  statements,  which  recent  events  have  in  part  confirmed. 
I  declined  the  propositions,  but  another  house  has  accepted  them,  so 
far  as  to  engage  the  services  of  about  thirty  men  to  return  to  Blue- 
fields  with  Mr.  B.  to  cut  mahogany,  one  cargo  of  which  has  actually 
been  received  at  this  port.  Mr.  Bell,  whilst  here,  had  a  large  chair 
made,  with  canopy,  &c.,  gilded  profusely,  and  covered  with  damask, 
which  he  stated  was  the  throne  of  the  king  of  the  Mosquitoes ;  also, 
halberds  and  other  paraphernalia  of  royalty,  which  he  took  out  with 
him  to  Bluefields.  At  the  time,  these  statements  made  but  little  im- 
pression upon  me ;  but  recent  events,  particularly  your  speech,  have 
showed  too  truly  their  truth  and  importance." 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  I  will  also  read  a  commu- 
nication furnished  me,  at  my  request,  by  the  head  of  one  of 
the  foreign  embassies  in  this  city,  and  addressed,  by  the 
British  charge  d'affaires  at  Bogota,  to  the  government  of 
New  Grenada,  setting  forth  the  extent  of  the  British  claims. 
In  January  last,  I  furnished  other  evidence,  to  the  same 
point,  on  the  authority  of  the  British  consul-general  at 
'■  Guatemala.    I  present  this  as  corroborative,  and  as  of  higher 

k  authority :  — 

I  "British  Legation, Bogota,  Sept.  24, '1847. 

"  Circumstances  having  given  rise  to  a  question  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  coast  frontier  of  the  kingdom  of  Mosquito,  her  Britannic  Majesty's 
government,  after  having  carefully  examined  the  various  documents 
and  historical  records  which  exist  relative  to  this  subject,  have  in- 
structed the  undersigned,  her  Britannic  Majesty's  charge  d'affaires,  to 
inform  the  government  of  New  Grenada  that  her  Majesty's  govern- 
ment are  of  opinion  that  the  right  of  the  King  of  Mosquito  should  be 
maintained,  as  extending  from  the  Cape  of  Honduras  down  to  the  mouth 
of  the  river  San  Juan. 

"  The  undersigned  has  likewise  been  instructed  to  state  that  her  M^g- 
esty's  government  will  not  view  with  indifference  any  attempt  to  en- 
croach upon  the  right  or  territories  of  the  King  of  Mosquito,  who  is 
under  the  protection  of  the  British  Crown. 


£70 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


"  In  addressing  this  communication  to  his  Excellency  M.  Man.  Anci- 
zar,  Grenadian  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ad  interim,  the 
undersigned  begs  to  assure  him  of  his  high  and  most  distinguished  con- 
sideration. Daniel  F.  O'Leary." 

From  the  information  I  have  heen  able  to  gather,  Mos- 
quito has  become,  for  all  practical  purposes,  a  British  colony. 
The  real  head  of  the  Mosquito  nation  is  Mr.  Patrick  Walker, 
the  British  consul  at  Bluefields.  The  nominal  king  of  the 
Mosquitoes  is  a  mere  boy,  living  in  his  house.  The  Mosquito 
nation  consists  of  a  few  hundred  naked  Indians, — idle,  ig- 
norant, and  worthless.  Under  the  pretence  of  giving  pro- 
tection to  this  miscalled  nation.  Great  Britain  has  extended 
her  sovereignty  over  a  district  of  country  nearly  as  large  as 
the  State  of  New  York  or  Pennsylvania.  She  has  ves- 
sels of  war,  commanded  by  British  subjects,  under  the  name 
of  the  Mosquito  navy.  And,  in  a  word,  she  has  appropriated 
to  herself  a  part  of  the  territory  of  Honduras,  and  is  en- 
croaching on  the  territory  of  Nicaragua,  against  the  solemn 
protest  of  the  Central  American  states.  Her  objects  are 
doubtless  threefold :  — 

1.  To  extend  her  political  dominion  on  this  continent; 

£.  To  open  new  fields  for  commercial  enterprise ;  and 

8.  To  obtain  possession  of  the  most  practicable  route  for 
a  ship-canal  across  the  Isthmus,  and  thus  to  control  the  com- 
mercial communication  between  the  two  oceans. 

This  last  object  is  naturally  regarded  as  the  most  impor- 
tant. The  route  has  been  surveyed  minutely,  thoroughly, 
by  a  British  engineer,  and  its  practicability  ascertained. 
From  the  Caribbean  sea  to  Lake  Nicaragua,  the  river 
San  Juan  is  susceptible  of  the  requisite  improvement.  The 
lake  is  already  navigable  for  vessels  of  any  burden ;  and 
from  the  lake  it  is  less  than  sixteen  miles  to  the  Pacific, 
with  a  mean  descent  of  about  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
eight  feet.  The  results  of  this  examination  will  be  found  at 
the  end  of  the  first  volume  of  Stephens's  work  on  Central 
America. 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS. 


^71 


But  it  is  not  through  her  connection  with  the  Mosquito 
coast  alone  that  Great  Britain  is  extending  herself  across 
the  continent.  Through  her  estahlishment  at  Balize  she  is 
penetrating  to  the  very  heart  of  the  peninsula  of  Yucatan. 
She  had  at  first  only  a  permission  to  occupy  a  small  district 
on  the  coast  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  logwood,  and  to  en- 
joy the  use  of  a  fishery  for  the  subsistence  of  the  persons 
employed.  This  permission  was  given  during  the  Spanish 
rule  in  America.  It  was  confirmed  in  I788  by  the  treaty  of 
Versailles,  under  very  cautious  restrictions,  and  slightly  ex- 
tended by  the  treaty  of  London  in  I786.  The  sovereignty 
of  Spain  over  this  territory  became,  by  virtue  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  her  colonies,  of  which  Yucatan  was  one,  vested 
in  Mexico.  But  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  Balize,  I  am 
told,  has  not  been  recognized  either  by  Mexico  or  Yucatan. 
She  not  only  continues  to  hold  the  coast,  but  she  has  ex- 
tended herself  over  a  district  of  about  fourteen  thousand 
square  miles,  embracing  one  of  the  most  valuable  portions 
of  Yucatan ;  and  I  believe  she  claims  it  by  conquest.  She 
is  within  sixty  miles  of  Chiapas,  the  southern  State  of  Mex- 
ico ; .  and  her  chief  establishment  is  said  to  be  a  vast  depot 
of  contraband.  A  fierce  contest  is  now  going  on  between 
the  Spanish  and  Indian  races  of  Yucatan;  and  the  latter, 
who  were  once  disarmed  and  harmless,  are  now  found  to  be 
abundantly  supplied  with  powder  and  firearms,  —  many  of 
the  latter  bearing  the  stamp  of  the  tower  of  London.  When 
this  contest,  marked,  as  all  such  contests  are,  by  murder,  and 
rapine,  and  wanton  barbarity,  shall  have  exhausted  the  com- 
batants, both  parties  may  be  willing  to  take  refuge  in  the 
power,  and  find  tranquillity  under  the  protection,  of  Great 
Britain.  Sir,  this  is  the  usual  issue  of  her  intervention  in 
the  domestic  concerns  of  other  States  —  those  especially  in 
which  civilization  has  made  but  little  progress.  This  is  still 
more  likely  to  be  the  result  when  semi-barbarous  tribes  are 
intermingled  with  civilized  races,  as  in  the  greater  portion 
of  this  continent  to  the  south  of  us,  and  from  numbers  or 


2J2  SPEECHES  IN   THE  SENATE. 

local  circumstances  approaching  an  equality  with  each  other 
in  point  of  strength. 

I  do  not  make  these  statements,  Mr.  President,  for  the 
purpose  of  exciting  feeling  here  or  elsewhere.  It  is  a  subject 
which  I  desire  to  see  considered  with  calmness  and  delibera- 
tion ;  but  it  is  one  which  deeply  concerns  us.  Our  tranquil- 
lity, our  political  comfort,  our  commercial  interests,  are  all 
involved  in  the  exemption  of  neighboring  states  from  do- 
mestic dissensions  and  violence  ;  and  we  have  a  right  to  see 
that  these  mischiefs  are  not  promoted  by  unauthorized  inter- 
ference from  abroad.  I  do  not  propose  to  speak  of  the 
right  of  interference  in  the  internal  concerns  of  other  states. 
On  a  former  occasion  I  said  to  the  Senate  all  that  I  desire 
to  say  on  that  subject.  But  I  hold  it  to  be  our  right  and 
our  duty,  when  we  see  questionable  movements  by  foreign 
powers  on  this  continent,  either  through  their  constituted  au- 
thorities or  through  their  subjects,  supported  by  the  power 
of  the  state,  to  know  what  are  their  objects,  and  to  see 
that  the  political  independence  of  our  weak  and  defenceless 
neighbors  is  not  insidiously  subverted,  and  their  territorial 
possessions  wrested  from  them  by  unwarrantable  encroach- 
ment. 

One  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  system  by  which  Great 
Britain  has  extended  herself  over  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
globe  is,  that  she  usually  acts,  in  the  first  instance,  by  pri- 
vate rather  than  by  public  agents.  She  employs  commerce 
to  effect  what  other  governments  accomplish  by  public  au- 
thority and  force.  Instead  of  sending  an  army  or  a  fleet 
to  take  possession  of  a  coast,  she  sends  a  trading  company. 
Nothing  can  be  more  unsuspicious  than  the  circumstances 
under  which  their  first  lodgment  —  the  germ,  perhaps,  of  a 
future  empire  —  is  made.  They  only  wish  some  facilities 
for  landing  and  for  shelter  while  they  dispose  of  their  mer- 
chandise ;  they  desire  to  establish  a  factory  (which,  in  the 
British  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  a  house  for  traders),  and 
to  enjoy  some  temporary  conveniences  for  traffic.     The  per- 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS.  gy3 

mission  is  given,  a  foothold  is  obtained,  a  house  is  built,  and 
a  picket,  a  ditch,  an  embankment  follow.  These  simple  im- 
provements (to  use  an  American  phrase)  grow  insensibly 
into  a  settlement,  a  fortress,  and  a  colony,  and  the  occupation 
becomes  perpetual.  Here  are  British  subjects,  British  prop- 
erty, and  British  interests  to  be  protected;  the  honor  of 
Great  Britain  is  concerned,  and  it  will  not  permit  them  to 
be  abandoned.  Her  East  Indian  empire,  the  most  vast  and 
lucrative  of  her  possessions,  was  gained  through  the  agency 
of  a  trading  company.  Through  a  trading  company  she 
gained  her  first  foothold  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America, 
and  obtained  for  herself  in  the  end  some  of  the  best  portions 
of  Oregon. 

There  is  another  peculiarity  in  the  British  system  of  ex- 
tension. Colonization  is  only  desired  so  far  as  it  is  coexten- 
sive with  political  sovereignty.  She  does  not  labor  to  civ- 
ilize or  improve  where  she  cannot  rule.  Commercial  inter- 
est is  the  principal,  and  social  improvement  the  incident  in 
her  progress. 

Sir,  there  were  two  great  systems  of  colonization  in  an- 
cient times,  —  those  of  Greece  and  Rome,  —  and  each  dis- 
tinct in  its  character.  Greece  was  actuated  by  no  sordid  ref- 
erence to  self  in  the  extension  of  her  people.  When  she  sent 
out  her  children  to  colonize  distant  territories,  she  let  them 
go  forth  independent  and  free.  She  did  not  insist  on  carry- 
ing her  political  sovereignty  along  with  them,  and  compelling 
them  to  pay  a  servile  obedience  to  it.  She  sent  them  out 
with  her  benedictions  and  her  prayers,  to  enjoy,  unshared  by 
herself,  whatever  prosperity  they  could  earn  by  their  industry 
and  their  valor ;  and  it  was  through  these  migrations  that  the 
foundations  of  ancient  civilization  were  laid  in  southern 
Italy. 

Roman  colonization  was  totally  different  in  its  character. 
Rome,  indeed,  did  not  encourage  colonization  out  of  Italy  in 
the  early  days  of  the  republic.  In  its  latter  days,  and  dur- 
ing the  early  period  of  the  empire,  she  sent  out  colonies  to 

35 


gy4<  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

distant  regions,  and  retained  them  in  dependence  on  herself. 
She  desired  that  all  the  streams  of  prosperity  which  ema- 
nated from  her  should  be  poured  back,  in  enlarged  currents, 
upon  their  source.  It  was  a  vast  system  of  centralization. 
Under  its  influence  the  heart  became  distended  and  gorged, 
while  the  extremities  were  left  exhausted  and  cold,  and  the 
whole  system  fell  asunder  by  force  of  this  inequality. 

This  is  the  British  system  of  colonization ;  it  has  been 
made  more  liberal  of  late,  but  unless  still  further  relaxed,  its 
fate  will  be  the  same.  Its  great  characteristic  is  dependence 
on  the  parent  state ;  its  most  inflexible  formulas,  (if  I  may 
be  allowed  the  expression,)  colonial  governments  subservient 
to  the  Crown,  commercial  regulations  framed  with  an  ex- 
clusive, and  usually  (such  is  the  fatality  of  all  selfishness, 
individual  or  national)  with  a  mistaken  view  to  metropolitan 
interests. 

It  is  not  for  our  advantage  that  this  system  should  be 
extended.  We  desire  freedom  in  commercial  intercourse. 
We  do  not  interfere  with  any  colonial  systems,  however  ex- 
clusive, where  they  now  exist.  We  do  not  oppose  their  ex- 
tension in  other  portions  of  the  globe.  But  having  no  colo- 
nies ourselves,  desiring  none,  looking  only  to  an  extension  by 
pacific  means,  and  from  the  operation  of  natural  laws,  over 
the  unoccupied  districts  of  country  west  of  us,  we  have  a 
right  to  insist  that  colonial  establishments,  exclusive  in  their 
character  as  respects  commercial  intercourse,  shutting  out 
the  world  except  the  parent  state,  and  dependent  on  distant 
governments,  shall  not  be  planted  in  our  neighborhood  in 
violation  of  the  rights  of  defenceless  states.  I  would  not 
make  this  principle  the  theme  of  a  declaration  or  a  mani- 
festo. I  would  have  it  quietly  announced  to  those  whom  it 
concerns,  and  firmly  maintained  against  all  infringement. 

Before  I  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject  I  wish  to  say 
that  I  am  not  unwilling  to  concede  to  Great  Britain  some 
merit  for  what  she  has  done  for  constitutional  liberty  in  the 
past,  nor  am  I  disposed  to  deny  that  her  colonial  system 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS. 


275 


may  in  the  end  lead  to  results  of  great  value  to  the  cause 
of  civilization.  She  has,  in  more  than  one  instance,  arrayed 
herself  against  the  progress  of  arbitrary  government  in 
Europe,  and  asserted  principles  which  lie  at  the  very  basis 
of  all  free  institutions.  Through  her  colonial  possessions 
she  is  disseminating  throughout  the  globe  the  intelligence 
and  the  civilization  by  which  she  is  herself  distinguished; 
and,  when  the  political  bonds  by  which  her  vast  possessions 
are  held  together  shall  be  rent  asunder,  —  a  day  not  distant, 
perhaps,  —  when  the  sceptre  of  her  empire  shall  be  broken, 
the  colonies  she  has  planted  on  every  continent  and  in  every 
sea  will  become  so  many  centres  from  which  the  lights  of 
knowledge  and  freedom  will  be  radiated  to  the  darker  por- 
tions of  the  earth.  While  advocating  a  determined  resist- 
ance to  her  encroachments,  I  am  willing,  nevertheless,  to  do 
her  this  political  justice. 

Let  me  now  turn  to  the  subject  more  immediately  in 
hand  —  the  California  claims.  The  propriety  of  passing 
the  bill  providing  for  the  payment  of  them  has  been  fully 
shown  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan.  It  only 
remains  for  me  to  consider  the  subject  in  connection  with 
the  particular  topic  which  I  have  discussed. 

By  the  testimony  taken  before  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary Affairs,  it  appears,  — 

1.  That  Eugenio  Macnamara,  a  Catholic  priest,  made 
application  to  the  government  of  Mexico  for  the  grant  of 
land  in  Upper  California,  for  the  establishment  of  Irish 
colonies.  The  first  colony  was  to  be  established  at  San 
Francisco ;  the  second  at  Monterey ;  and  the  third  at  Santa 
Barbara;  and  the  number  of  colonists  was  not  to  be  less 
than  ten  thousand.  There  is  no  date  to  the  application ; 
but  other  documents  show  it  to  have  been  previously  to  the 
19th  of  January,  18^6. 

2,  The  avowed  objects  of  Macnamara  were  to  keep  the 
Californias  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Americans,  who  are 
represented,  in  his  memorial  to  the    Mexican  government, 


^5  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

as  an  artful  and  base  enemy,  and  as  abhorring  the  people 
and  the  religion  of  Mexico. 

I  will  read  to  the  Senate  some  extracts  from  his  original 
application  to  the  Mexican  government.  They  will  be 
found  in  the  translation  at  page  19  of  the  document  con- 
taining the  testimony  taken  before  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary AjfFairs,  and  in  the  original  Spanish  at  page  77  of  the 
same  document :  — 

"  I,  Eugenio  Macnamara,  Catholic  priest  and  apostolical  missionary, 
take  the  liberty  of  submitting  to  your  Excellency  some  reflections  on  a 
subject  which  at  this  time  attracts  much  public  attention.  I  allude  to 
the  expectations  and  actual  condition  of  Upper  California. 

"  It  does  not  require  the  gift  of  prophecy  to  foresee,  that  within  a 
little  time  this  fertile  country  will  cease  to  be  an  integral  part  of  this 
republic,  unless  some  prompt  and  efficacious  measures  be  adopted  to 
restrain  foreign  rapacity. 

"  For  this  reason  I  propose,  with  the  aid  and  approbation  of  your 
Excellency,  to  carry  forward  this  project,  to  place  in  Upper  California 
a  colony  of  Irish  Catholics.  I  have  a  triple  object  in  making  this 
proposition :  I  wish,  in  the  first  place,  to  advance  the  cause  of  Catholi- 
cism ;  in  the  second,  to  contribute  to  the  happiness  of  my  countrymen  ; 
thirdly,  I  desire  to  put  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  further  usurpations  on 
the  part  of  an  irreligious  and  anti-Catholic  nation.  I  therefore  propose 
to  your  Excellency  that  there  be  conceded  to  me  an  extent  of  territory 
on  the  coast  of  Upper  California  for  the  purpose  I  have  indicated." 

T  will  also  read  an  extract  at  page  21  from  his  second 
application,  urging  attention  to  the  first.  It  will  be  found 
in  Spanish  at  page  79  •  — 

*'  Your  Excellency  will  excuse  me,  that  I  take  the  liberty  further  to 
demonstrate  that  no  time  ought  to  be  lost  in  this  important  affair,  if  it 
is  desired  to  be  realized,  since  your  Excellency  knows  well  enough  that 
we  are  surrounded  by  an  artful  and  base  enemy,  who  loses  no  means, 
however  low,  to  possess  himself  of  the  best  territory  of  this  country, 
and  who  abhors  to  the  death  its  race  and  its  religion. 

"  If  the  means  which  I  propose  be  not  speedily  adopted,  your  Excel- 
lency may  be  assured  that,  before  another  year,  the  Californias  will 
form  a  part  of  the  American  nation.  Their  Catholic  institutions  will 
become  the  prey  of  the  Methodist  wolves,  and  the  whole  country  will 
be  inundated  with  the  cruel  invaders.  Whilst  I  propose  the  means  of 
repelling  them,  my  propositions  ought  to  be  the  more  admissible,  inas- 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS.  ^ 

much  as  I  have  no  personal  interest  in  the  affair,  save  the  progress  of 
the  holy  religion  of  God,  and  the  happiness  of  my  countrymen." 

The  stigmas  cast  upon  us  and  upon  one  of  our  most  re- 
spectable religious  sects,  I  regard  as  designed  by  Macnamara 
to  minister  to  the  prejudices  of  Mexico,  with  a  view  to  the 
accomplishment  of  his  purposes,  rather  than  as  emanating 
from  a  conviction  of  their  truth. 

3.  The  grant  to  Macnamara,  after  being  submitted  to  the 
consideration  of  the  Governor  of  California,  was  made  on 
the  4th  of  July,  1846,  and  comprised  about  three  thousand 
square  leagues,  containing,  besides  the  bay  of  San  Francisco, 
some  of  the  best  lands  and  some  of  the  most  important 
military  and  commercial  positions  in  California. 

4.  Macnamara  was  taken  to  California  in  a  British  sloop 
of  war  (the  Juno)  in  June,  1846;  a  British  ship  of  eighty 
guns,  (the  Collingwood,)  commanded  by  Admiral  Seymour, 
followed  in  July,  and  Macnamara  was  taken  away  in  her. 

The  extract  I  am  about  to  read  from  the  affidavit  of 
Colonel  Fremont  will  show  the  connection  between  Macna- 
niara's  movements  and  those  of  the  public  armed  vessels  of 
Great  Britain.  It  will  be  found  at  page  14  of  the  docu- 
ment :  — 

"  The  fruits  of  the  revolutionary  movement  thus  passed  to  the  United 
States,  and  have  remained  with  her  ever  since.  These  fruits  were  very 
considerable.  Besides  the  peaceable  possession  of  all  the  northern  part 
of  California,  and  the  actual  force  in  the  field  under  the  independent 
flag,  which  immediately  went  into  service  under  the  United  States, 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  and  evidence  is  now  at  hand  to  sustain 
that  belief,  that  the  revolutionary  movement  prevented  a  design  of  the 
Californians  to  put  their  country  under  the  flag  of  the  British,  and  also 
prevented  the  completion  of  the  colonization  grant  of  three  thousand 
square  leagues  to  Macnamara,  who  was  brought  to  California  in  the 
British  sloop  of  war  Juno  in  the  month  of  June,  1846.  Admiral 
Seymour,  in  the  Collingwood,  of  eighty  guns,  arrived  at  Monterey  on 
the  1 6th  of  July.  Macnamara  was  on  board  the  Collingwood  when  I 
arrived  at  Monterey  on  the  19th,  and  was  carried  away  in  that  vessel. 
The  taking  possession  of  that  place  on  the  7th  had  anticipated  him, 
and  the  revolutionary  movement  had  checked  the  designs  of  the  Califor- 


S78 


SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 


nians  to  place  the  country  under  British  protection ;  and  also  prevented 
the  fulfilment  of  the  great  grant  to  Macnamara,  the  original  papers  of 
which  I  now  have  here,  to  be  shown  to  the  committee  and  to  be  deliv- 
ered up  to  the  government." 

5.  In  addition  to  the  Macnamara  grants,  some  of  the 
most  valuable  missions  were  sold  in  May  and  June,  1846, 
to  British  subjects,  for  very  inconsiderable  sums,  showing 
an  evident  design,  in  case  the  United  States  should  get  pos- 
session of  the  Californias,  to  keep  some  of  the  most  valu- 
able districts  out  of  the  hands  of  the  government,  by  con- 
verting them,  through  fraudulent  conveyances,  into  British 
property. 

6.  It  appears  also  that  a  plan  was  set  on  foot  by  the 
British  vice-consul  in  California,  Mr.  Forbes,  Macnamara, 
and  others,  to  put  that  country  under  the  protection  of 
Great  Britain,  and  at  the  very  moment  when  it  was  ex- 
pected that  a  war  would  break  out  between  the  United 
States  and  Mexico.  The  time,  the  circumstances,  the  actors, 
all  indicate  a  deliberate  design  to  get  possession  of  Califor- 
nia, for  the  purpose  of  keeping  it  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
United  States.  The  auspices  under  which  a  junta  was 
planned  and  convoked  for  the  purpose  of  asking  the  protec- 
tion of  Great  Britain  are  shown  by  an  extract  which  I 
will  read  from  the  affidavit  of  Captain  Gillespie,  of  the  Ma- 
rine Corps,  and  which  will  be  found  at  page  S8  of  the  doc- 
ument :  — 

"About  this  time  (June  30)  I  learned  that  the  junta  which  was  to 
have  assembled  at  Santa  Barbara  upon  the  15th  June,  and  which  had 
been  planned  and  arranged  by  and  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Forbes, 
the  British  vice-consul,  and  an  Irish  Catholic  priest,  by  the  name  of 
Macnamara,  had  been  prevented  from  assembling  in  consequence  of  the 
rising  of  the  settlers.  This  junta  was  proposed  for  the  purpose  of 
asking  the  protection  of  England,  and  of  giving  an  immense  tract  of 
land  in  the  valley  of  the  San  Joaquin  for  the  settlement  of  ten  thou- 
sand Irishmen,  to  be  brought  to  California  under  the  direction  of  Mac- 
namara. All  this  intrigue  of  British  agents  was  broken  up  by  the 
timely  and  prompt  operations  of  the  settlers,  under  the  direction  of 
Captain  Fremont." 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS. 


m 


By  Lieutenant  Minor's  testimony,  which  will  be  found  at 
pages  48  and  44,  it  appears  that  the  convention  or  junta 
was  held,  and  that  a  majority  were  in  favor  of  claiming  the 
protection  of  England,  —  a  decision  naturally  to  have  been 
expected,  when  it  is  considered  under  what  auspices  it  was 
convoked.  The  extracts  I  am  about  to  read  contain  also 
some  interesting  facts  connected  with  the  movements  of  the 
British  admiral :  — 

"  The  undersigned,  a  lieutenant  in  the  navy  of  the  United  States, 
has  the  honor  to  make  the  following  answers  to  the  interrogatories 
put  to  him  by  your  honorable  committee  : 

"  The  undersigned  being  in  command  of  the  southern  district  of  Cali- 
fornia during  the  latter  part  of  1846,  was  informed  by  Pedro  C.  Carilla 
(and  he  believes  the  information  thus  obtained  is  founded  on  facts) 
that  he,  the  said  Carilla,  was  a  member  of  a  junta  that  assembled  at 
Santa  Barbara  in  June,  1846,  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  the  inde- 
pendence of  California,  and  of  asking  the  protection  of  the  United  States 
or  Great  Britain ;  that  the  junta  was  represented  by  all  of  the  inhab- 
ited portions  of  California ;  that  a  majority  of  the  same  were  for  claim- 
ing the  protection  of  England ;  that  their  resolves  would  probably  have 
been  executed  had  it  not  been  for  the  war  and  their  fears  of  an  armed 
force,  then  on  the  north  side  of  the  bay  of  San  Francisco,  under  the 
command  of  Captain  Fremont.  The  undersigned  has  understood  from 
other  sources,  entitled  to  confidence,  that  a  majority  of'  the  people  of 
California  desired  the  protection  of  England.  The  opinion  he  thus 
formed  was  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  an  English  frigate  (the  Juno) 
bad,  about  the  time  the  junta  met,  landed  an  English  subject  named 
Macnamara  at  Santa  Barbara,  of  whom  it  was  said  that  he  had  ob- 
tained a  grant  from  the  Mexican  government  of  a  large  and  fertile 
portion  of  California,  embracing  the  whole  valley  of  the  San  Joaquin, 
from  its  source  to  its  mouth,  —  a  valley,  as  the  undersigned  believes, 
comprising  one  third  of  the  richest  portion  of  California.  The  under- 
signed believes  that  the  British  squadron  in  the  Pacific,  commanded  by 
Rear-Admiral  Sir  George  T.  Seymour,  composed  then  of  a  larger 
force  than  they  ever  had  upon  that  ocean,  were  employed  in  closely 
watching  the  movements  of  the  American  commodore.  Being  aware 
of  this  fact.  Commodore  Sloat,  when  he  heard  of  the  first  battle  on  the 
Rio  Grande,  got  under  way  in  the  frigate  Savannah,  then  anchored 
off  Mazatlan,  for  the  ostensible  purpose  of  proceeding  to  California. 
An  English  vessel  of  war  weighed  soon  after  the  Savannah,  and  stood 
in  the  direction  of  San  Bias,  where  it  was  known  the  admiral  was. 
After  cruising  in  the  gulf  two  days,  the  commodore  returned  to  his 


£80  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

anchorage  off  Mazatlan,  when  another  English  ship  got  under  way  and 
stood  in  the  direction  of  San  Bias.  The  undersigned  believes  that 
this  manoeuvre  of  Commodore  Sloat  was  intended  for  the  deception  of 
the  English  admiral.  On  the  8th  of  June,  1846,  the  Savannah  again 
made  sail,  and  after  a  passage  of  twenty-three  days,  during  which  a 
press  of  canvas  was  carried,  she  arrived  at  the  port  of  Monterey,  in 
Upper  California.  The  Collingwood,  of  eighty  guns,  the  flag-ship  of 
Admiral  Seymour,  entered  the  harbor  on  the  15th  of  July,  and  the 
undersigned  believes  that  the  admiral  was  disappointed  when  he  saw 
the  American  flag  flying  on  shore." 

The  testimony  of  Captain  Hensley,  from  which  I  will 
give  a  brief  extract,  and  which  will  be  found  at  page  38, 
fully  sustains  the  statement  of  Lieutenant  Minor :  — 

"I  am  a  resident  in  California,  where  I  have  resided  since  the 
autumn  of  1843.  In  the  month  of  May,  1846,  I  went  to  San  Fran- 
cisco, where  I  met  with  General  Vallejo,  one  of  the  most  prominent 
and  influential  men  in  Upper  California.  I  understood  from  him  that  he 
had  recently  attended  a  convention,  composed  of  General  Castro,  him- 
self, and  five  others,  delegates  from  the  different  districts  in  California, 
at  which  the  proposition  had  been  made  and  debated  to  separate  from 
Mexico,  and  establish  a  government  in  California,  under  the  protection 
of  some  foreign  power,  believed  by  us  to  be  England;  but,  as  the 
general  positively  stated,  the  majority  was  not  in  favor  of  placing  the 
country  under  the  protection  of  the  United  States,  though  he  himself 
was.  General  Vallejo  was  of  course  guarded  in  conversing  on  so  dan- 
gerous a  subject  as  this  was  at  that  time ;  but  the  above  is  the  sub- 
stance of  his  remarks,  as  understood  by  myself  and  others  who  heard 
them." 

The  grant  to  Macnamara  is  so  connected  with  the  move- 
ments of  the  public  vessels  and  public  agents  of  Great 
Britain  as  to  raise  a  strong  presumption  that  he  was  secretly 
countenanced  by  the  British  government.  Doctor  John 
Baldwin,  whose  testimony  will  be  found  at  pages  46  ei 
seq.,  states  that  Macnamara  lived  in  the  house  of  the 
British  consul,  or  charge  d'affaires,  in  Mexico,  and  that 
he  understood  in  that  city,  in  September  and  October, 
1847,  a  plan  had  been  projected,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
British  legation,  to  colonize  California  with  emigrants  from 
Ireland.     These  facts  will  be  more  fully  shown  by  his  affi- 


CALIFORNIA   CLAIMS.  ggl 

davit,  at  pages  46  and  47  of  the  document,  from  which  I 
will  read  a  single  paragraph  :  — 

"I  resided  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  from  the  year  1822  until 
1838,  a  period  of  sixteen  years,  during  which  I  made  the  acquaintance 
of  many  of  the  leading  men  of  the  country. 

"  I  again  entered  Mexico  (city)  on  the  14th  of  September,  1847, 
and  remained  there  until  the  1st  of  November ;  during  that  time  I 
made  the  acquaintance  of  the  priest  Macnamara,  and  from  sources 
entitled  to  credit  I  was  informed  that  he  had,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
British  legation,  projected  a  plan  to  colonize  California  with  emigrants 
from  Ireland.  His  project  had  met  the  approbation  of  the  Mexican 
government,  and  he  went  to  California  to  perfect  his  plans.  In  the 
mean  time,  it  was  ascertained  that  the  ulterior  views  of  Macnamara 
were  to  promote  the  interest  of  the  British  government  and  not  the 
Mexican  government.  A  fierce  opposition  was  contemplated  by  the 
republican  members  of  Congress,  when  he  should  return  with  his  ma- 
tured plans  from  California ;  this  resistance  became  unnecessary  in  con- 
sequence of  the  conquest  of  California  by  the  arms  of  the  United 
States.  Macnamara  lived  in  the  family  of  either  the  British  consul 
or  charge  d'affaires  in  Mexico." 

I  have  referred  to  the  connection  of  Macnamara's  move- 
ments with  the  public  vessels  of  Great  Britain  as  presump- 
tive evidence  of  the  connection  of  the  British  government 
with  them.  I  do  not  inquire  whether  Admiral  Seymour 
had  special  instructions  or  not.  From  the  declaration  of 
Admiral  Purvis,  in  the  intervention  of  La  Plata,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  British  naval  officers  cruising  in  distant  seas 
have  general  instructions  "  to  protect  British  interests  at  all 
hazards,"  (I  believe  that  is  the  phrase,)  leaving  an  unlimited 
discretion  to  the  officer,  and  giving  to  the  government  the 
advantage  of  being  able  to  approve  or  disavow  his  conduct 
in  special  cases,  according  to  its  own  interest.  From  all 
the  circumstances  connected  with  the  transactions  in  Cali- 
fornia, we  are  constrained  to  believe  that  the  British  naval 
commander  was  fully  apprised  of  Macnamara's  objects,  as 
well  as  the  design  to  place  that  country  under  the  protection 
of  Great  Britain,  and  that  he  was  there  cooperating  in  the 

one,  and  ready  to  cooperate  in  the  other.     Indeed,  by  refer- 
86 


QS2  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


ring  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Loker,  at  page  39,  it  will  be 
seen  that  his  arrival  there  had  been  talked  about  and  ex- 
pected with  a  view  "  to  take  possession  of  California." 

I  have  given,  Mr.  President,  a  mere  outline  of  the  trans- 
actions of  British  subjects  and  British  agents  in  California. 
The  leading  facts  are  verified  by  the  affidavits  of  Colonel 
Fremont,  Captain  Gillespie,  of  the  marine  corps,  Lieutenant 
Minor,  and  Midshipman  Wilson,  of  the  navy.  Colonel  Rus- 
sel,  Captain  Hensley,  Doctor  Baldwin,  and  many  gentlemen 
connected  with  the  civil  and  military  transactions  of  the 
Californias  after  the  rupture  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico ;  and  some  of  the  most  important  circumstances  are 
authenticated  by  the  public  records  of  California  which  fell 
into  our  possession. 

It  is  impossible  that  the  success  of  these  movements  should 
not  have  brought  us  into  direct  collision  with  Great  Britain. 
We  could  not  have  failed  to  regard  them,  considered  in  con- 
nection with  her  proceedings  in  Oregon,  and  more  recently 
in  Central  America,  as  part  of  a  deliberate  design  to  environ 
us  with  her  colonies,  and  especially  to  shut  us  out  from  the 
Pacific  and  its  extending  commerce.  From  all  the  facts,  we 
can  hardly  doubt  either  that  she  would  have  taken  possession 
of  the  country  in  her  own  name,  or,  what  is  perhaps  more 
probable,  that  she  would,  in  the  first  instance,  have  taken  it 
under  her  protection.  In  this  case  the  drama  of  the  Mos- 
quito coast,  the  performers  only  being  changed,  would  have 
been  acted  over  again.  A  Californian  governor,  somewhat 
above  the  grade  of  the  king  of  the  Mosquitoes  in  respecta- 
bility, but  on  the  same  level  with  him  in  subservience  to  the 
protecting  power,  would  have  been  put  in  the  foreground, 
while  British  subjects  would  have  occupied  the  country,  and 
gradually  reduced  it  into  the  possession  of  Grreat  Britain. 
Thus  shut  out  from  the  Pacific,  our  own  people  would  have 
been  met  at  the  Sierra  Madre,  or  perhaps  still  further  east, 
and  the  tide  of  emigration  and  settlement  would  have  been 
turned  back  upon  the  Atlantic  coast.     It  is  in  this  point  of 


CALIFORNIA  CLAIMS. 


288 


view  that  these  transactions  possess  the  greatest  interest  and 
importance,  and  that  the  sagacity,  promptitude,  and  decision 
of  our  youthful  commander  in  California,  at  the  time  the  dis- 
turbances broke  out,  have  given  him  the  strongest  claims  on 
his  countrymen.  Any  faltering  on  his  part  —  any  hesitancy 
in  acting  and  in  acting  promptly  —  might  have  cost  us  mil- 
lions of  dollars  and  thousands  of  lives ;  and  it  might  also 
have  cost  us  a  contest  of  which  the  end  is  not  readily  fore- 


seen. 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL. 

A  BILL  to  take  temporary  military  possession  of  Yucatan  was  intro- 
duced into  the  Senate,  in  pursuance  of  a  recommendation  of  the  Presi- 
dent that  our  naval  forces  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  should  be  employed 
to  afford  relief  to  the  white  population,  who  were  in  danger  of  extermi- 
nation by  the  Indians,  and  to  prevent  that  province  from  becoming  a  col- 
ony to  a  European  power.  The  provisions  of  the  bill  went  far  beyond 
the  suggestions  of  the  President.  Mr.  Dix,  in  his  speech,  which  was 
delivered  on  the  17th  May,  1848,  opposed  the  military  occupation  of 
Yucatan  as  provided  for  by  the  bill,  but  advocated  the  President's  recom- 
mendations. 

Mr.  President:  I  said  yesterday,  when  I  offered  the 
amendment  which  you  have  just  announced  as  the  question 
first  to  be  decided  by  the  Senate,  I  should  be  quite  willing 
that  the  vote  should  be  taken  upon  it  without  discussion; 
but  that  if  the  debate  proceeded,  I  should  have  something  to 
say  in  support  of  my  motion.  I  find  the  whole  subject  is  to 
be  further  discussed ;  and  so  many  inquiries  have  been  ad- 
dressed to  me,  by  members  of  this  body,  in  relation  to  the 
particular  object  of  the  amendment,  that  I  feel  myself  called 
on  to  explain  it.  I  shall,  at  the  same  time,  avail  myself  of 
the  opportunity  to  make  some  remarks  upon  the  general 
question.  In  doing  so,  I  feel  that  I  shall  labor  under  some 
disadvantage,  as  I  was  not  present  during  the  first  week 
of  the  discussion,  and  have  not  had  time  since  to  read  the 
printed  report ;  so  that  it  is  possible  I  may,  in  the  remarks 
I  shall  make,  cover  ground  which  has  already  been  better 
occupied  by  others. 

The  question  presented  to  us  by  the  bill  we  are  consid- 
ering is  not  in  itself  a  very  simple  one ;  and  it  appears  to 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  285 

me  that  it  has  been  converted,  perhaps  not  unnecessarily, 
into  one  of  still  greater  complexity.  I  shall  endeavor,  in 
what  I  have  to  say,  to  divest  it  of  some,  at  least,  of  its  com- 
plications. 

The  State  of  Yucatan  is  distracted  by  an  internal  conflict 
between  the  different  classes  of  which  her  population  consists. 
She  has  applied  to  us  and  to  other  nations  for  aid ;  and  she 
tenders  her  political  sovereignty  to  any  power  which  will 
take  her  under  its  protection.  Sir,  there  can  be  no  higher 
evidence  of  the  hopelessness  of  the  condition  to  which  she 
is  reduced,  and  I  recollect  no  other  instance,  in  modern  times 
at  least,  in  which  a  State  has  offered  to  surrender  its  nation- 
ality to  a  foreign  power,  for  the  purpose  of  being  protected 
against  itself.  The  President  has  called  our  attention  to  the 
subject  in  a  special  message ;  and  I  think  he  would  have 
been  indefensible  if  he  had  not  done  so.  He  submits  no 
proposition  to  us,  but  leaves  it  to  the  judgment  of  Congress 
to  determine  what  measures  shall  be  adopted  to  prevent 
Yucatan  from  becoming  the  colony  of  a  European  power, 
and  to  rescue  the  white  race  from  extermination  or  expul- 
sion. The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  in  pursuance 
of  the  suggestion  of  the  President,  has  reported  a  bill  au- 
thorizing him  to  take  temporary  possession  or  occupation  of 
the  country,  and  providing  arms,  munitions  of  war,  ord- 
nance, and  troops  for  that  purpose. 

The  first  suggestion  which  occurs  to  us  is,  that  this  is 
an  internal  dispute  in  which,  under  ordinary  circumstances, 
we  could  not  properly  take  part.  We  insist  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  non-intervention  in  the  affairs  of  other  independent 
States.  We  hold  every  violation  of  this  principle  to  be  an 
offence  against  the  common  order  and  the  common  tran- 
quillity of  civilized  society.  We  insist  upon  its  observance 
by  other  nations.  Our  first  duty,  then,  is  to  observe  it 
ourselves. 

Is  there  anything  in  the  peculiar  relations  of  Yucatan  to 
the  United  States  and  to  Mexico  which  would  authorize  us 


2S6  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

to  interpose  and  perform  a  high  duty  of  humanity,  without 
violating  the  rule  I  have  stated?  Upon  the  solution  of  this 
question,  the  propriety  of  our  interference  mainly  depends.  In 
my  judgment,  from  the  examination  which  I  have  been  able 
to  give  to  the  subject,  the  circumstances  do  warrant  our 
interference  in  some  efficient  mode ;  and  I  shall  be  happy  if 
I  can  succeed  in  making  this  conviction  as  apparent  to  the 
mind  of  the  Senate  as  it  is  to  my  own.  In  attempting  to 
do  so,  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  the  relhtions,  past  and 
present,  of  Yucatan  to  Mexico,  and  the  existing  relations  of 
both  to  us. 

Yucatan,  I  believe,  was  never  comprehended  in  the  vice- 
royalty  of  Mexico,  under  the  old  Spanish  dominion  —  at  all 
events,  excepting  for  purposes  of  revenue.  She  was  under 
a  separate  government,  or  captain-gen eralcy,  and  communi- 
cated directly  with  the  court  of  Madrid.  In  1821,  she  suc- 
ceeded in  establishing  her  independence  without  the  aid  of 
Mexico;  and  when  the  empire  was  formed  under  Iturbide, 
she  became  united  to  it  under  certain  conditions.  On  the 
fall  of  Iturbide,  and  the  dissolution  of  the  empire,  she  again 
became  independent.  When  the  constitution  of  1824<  was 
adopted  by  the  United  Mexican  States,  she  became  a  member 
of  the  Confederation,  with  the  distinct  declaration  that  her 
connection  with  it  should  continue  only  so  long  as  that  con- 
stitution was  preserved  inviolate.  In  1884*,  when  the  consti- 
tution of  1824^  was  subverted  by  Santa  Ana,  she  became 
independent  a  third  time.  But  an  army  was  sent  against 
her  by  Santa  Ana,  I  believe  under  the  command  of  his 
brother-in-law ;  Merida,  the  capital,  was  taken ;  her  militia 
disbanded ;  some  of  her  principal  citizens  banished ;  and  she 
was,  in  fact,  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  military  despotism 
under  the  authority  of  the  central  government  of  Mexico. 
The  same  attempt  was  made  on  Texas,  who  was  happily 
more  successful  than  her  southern  sister  in  repelling  it. 

This  state  of  things  continued  until  1840,  when  Yucatan 
threw  off  her  subjection,  proclaimed  her  constitution,  and 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL. 


287 


was  on  the  point  of  declaring  her  independence,  when  a 
negotiation  was  entered  into  with  Mexico,  which  resulted,  in 
1841,  in  a  treaty,  leaving  her  a  part  of  Mexico,  but  with 
certain  separate  powers  in  respect  to  her  constitution  and 
laws,  and,  I  believe,  especially  in  regard  to  her  revenue, 
which  was  left  independent  of  the  general  revenue  system 
of  the  republic.  This  treaty,  though  executed  by  commis- 
sioners on  both  sides,  and  agreed  to  by  Yucatan,  was 
never  ratified  by  Mexico;  and  in  1842  another  army  was 
sent  into  Yucatan :  Merida  was  again  invested,  Campeachy 
was  bombarded  for  several  months;  but,  in  the  following 
year,  the  Mexican  forces  were  defeated  or  withdrawn ;  and, 
at  the  close  of  1848,  she  became  again  united  to  Mexico, 
with  some  reservations  of  sovereignty  beyond  those  possessed 
by  the  other  Mexican  states.  In  consequence  of  the  bad 
faith  of  the  Mexican  government,  and  the  differences  that 
were  constantly  springing  up  between  them,  she  declared,  on 
the  first  of  January,  1846,  the  connection  dissolved;  and  in 
March  of  that  year,  when  war  between  the  United  States 
and  Mexico  was  considered  imminent,  she  refused  to  furnish 
men  and  money  on  the  requisition  of  the  Central  govern- 
ment. In  August,  1846,  about  two  months  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  war,  an  extraordinary  congress  was  con- 
voked in  Yucatan,  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  the  friends 
of  Santa  Ana,  who  was  then  in  Cuba,  and  by  a  majority  of 
one  vote  he  was  declared  to  be  the  President  of  Mexico. 
This  decree,  however,  was  soon  after  annulled,  and  the  dec- 
laration of  the  first  of  January,  1846,  was  revived  and  rati- 
fied with  the  popular  sanction.  From  the  commencement 
of  the  war,  therefore,  except  for  the  very  brief  period  I  have 
mentioned,  Yucatan  has  maintained  an  attitude  of  strict 
neutrality. 

Notwithstanding  these  repeated  changes,  I  doubt  whether 
the  severance  of  the  political  relation  of  Yucatan  with  Mexico 
can  be  considered  complete.  Her  withdrawal  from  the 
Union  has  never  been  sanctioned  by  Mexico ;  nor  is  it  quite 


^88  SPEECHES   IN  THE   SENATE. 

apparent  that  her  position,  past  or  present,  carries  with  it 
the  attributes  of  an  effective  and  unqualified  independence. 
In  a  qualified  sense,  indeed,  she  may  be  said  to  have  been 
independent ;  but  we  have  constantly  treated  her  as  a  part 
of  the  Mexican  republic,  though  abstaining  from  acts  of 
hostility  against  her  on  account  of  her  refusal  to  take  part 
in  the  war  against  us.  She  complains  that,  while  not  con- 
sidering her  as  an  enemy,  we  have,  nevertheless,  not  treated 
her  as  a  friend  or  a  neutral.  We  have  occupied  the  port  of 
Laguna,  in  the  Island  of  Carmen, — one  of  the  islands  which 
nearly  shuts  out  Lake  Terminos  from  the  southern  portion 
of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  The  ground  of  this  occupation,  on 
our  part,  was,  that  a  trade  in  contraband  was  carried  on 
between  that  port  and  Tabasco,  which  was  hostile  to  us,  and 
which  borders  on  Lake  Terminos. 

Such,  then,  is  the  political  condition  of  Yucatan,  an  inte- 
gral portion  of  Mexico,  having  no  active  participation  in  the 
war  against  us,  and  maintaining,  for  the  most  part,  a  strict 
neutrality.  The  peculiar  relation  in  which  Yucatan  stands 
to  Mexico,  and  to  us,  undoubtedly  complicates  the  question 
of  our  interference  in  her  domestic  affairs.  We  have  entered 
into  a  treaty  with  Mexico;  and  although  we  are  not  per- 
mitted here  to  speak  definitely  with  regard  to  its  stipulations, 
enough  has  been  made  public  in  a  legitimate  way  to  show 
that  we  are  precluded  from  undertaking  any  hostile  enter- 
prise against  any  portion  of  the  Mexican  territory  or  people. 
An  armistice  has  been  agreed  on,  and  is  now  in  force,  pre- 
paratory to  the  evacuation  of  the  country,  in  case  the  treaty 
is  ratified.  These  facts  have  become  matters  of  public  noto- 
riety, not  through  the  action  of  this  body,  but  through  the 
acts  of  the  two  governments,  legitimately  performed  in  exe- 
cution of  the  preliminary  articles  of  agreement.  Under 
these  circumstances,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  military  occu- 
pation proposed  by  the  bill,  even  though  temporary,  may  be 
considered  incompatible  with  a  strict  construction  of  the 
treaty.     As  I  have  already  said,  we  have  constantly  treated 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL. 


S89 


Yucatan  as  a  part  of  Mexico.  The  President  so  considers 
her  in  his  special  message  calling  our  attention  to  the  subject. 
This  being  conceded,  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  are  as  ap- 
plicable to  her  as  to  any  other  department  or  state  of  the 
Mexican  republic.  We  can  only  do  in  respect  to  her  what 
we  may  do  in  respect  to  Jalisco,  Tabasco,  or  any  other  of 
the  Mexican  states.  Military  occupation,  in  its  commonly 
received  sense,  implies,  if  carried  out,  a  displacement  or  sub- 
version of  the  existing  government.  It  would  be  no  defence 
to  say  that  Yucatan  voluntarily  submits  to  our  power. 
Should  we  be  authorized,  this  treaty  being  in  force,  to 
occupy,  by  military  force,  the  state  of  Tabasco,  for  instance, 
if  the  local  government  were  willing  to  submit  to  US'?  No,  sir. 
I  apprehend  that  the  sanction  of  the  Central  government 
would  be  necessary  to  warrant  it.  In  like  manner,  Yucatan 
being  a  part  of  Mexico,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  military 
occupation  of  that  state  by  us  would  require  the  sanction  of 
the  Central  government.  This  rigid  construction  of  the 
treaty  may  seem  technical  and  over-scrupulous.  Perhaps  it 
is  so.  But  in  all  matters  involving  the  inviolability  of  inter- 
national engagements,  the  strictest  performance  of  stipula- 
tions is  not  only  the  part  of  prudence,  but  of  imperative 
duty.  We  should  afford  no  pretence  for  imputing  to  us  an 
act  of  bad  faith.  Now,  it  is  only  to  the  form  of  the  inter- 
position—  to  military  occupation  and  its  incidents — that  I 
object.  And  I  trust  my  friend  from  Indiana,  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,^  will  not  adhere  to 
the  first  section  of  the  bill  with  tenacity,  if  he  shall  be  satis- 
fied that  there  is  any  other  form  of  intervention  which  is 
unobjectionable,  and  which  will,  at  the  same  time,  accomplish 
the  same  end, —  which  will  avoid  all  pretext  for  the  impu- 
tation of  violating  the  treaty,  and  yet  enable  us  to  effect 
every  legitimate  object  of  the  interposition.  And  here  I 
desire  to  say,  that  I  approve  of  the  second  and  third  sections 
of  the  bill,  providing  arms,  munitions  of  war,  and  troops,  to 

1  Mr.  Hannegan. 
37 


£90  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

put  an  end  to  the  war  of  devastation  in  Yucatan.  I  know- 
nothing  more  revolting  in  the  history  of  modem  times  than 
the  exterminating  warfare  carried  on  by  the  aboriginal 
against  the  European  races.  Neither  age  nor  sex,  nor  even 
the  sanctity  of  religion,  is  respected.  The  infant  is  slaugh- 
tered at  the  mother's  breast ;  the  priest  is  immolated  at  the 
altar.  It  is  not  legitimate  warfare ;  it  is  cold-blooded, 
atrocious  murder. 

So  far  as  we  are  permitted,  by  international  obligations 
and  by  constitutional  forms  of  political  organization  at  home, 
I  am  disposed  to  interfere  for  the  purpose  of  putting  an  end 
to  transactions  so  repugnant  to  every  dictate  of  humanity, 
and  every  principle  of  civilization.  I  am  willing  to  vote  for 
the  second  and  third  sections  of  the  bill.  For  the  first  sec- 
tion I  have  proposed  a  substitute,  which  I  will  now  read:  — 

Strike  out  all  the  first  section  after  the  enacting  clause, 
and  insert  the  following  :  — 

"  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  authorized  to  employ 
the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States  to  aid  in  putting  an  end  to  the 
war  of  devastation  in  Yucatan,  provided  the  aid  hereby  authorized  be 
rendered  in  concurrence  with  the  government  of  that  state." 

The  difference  between  the  original  section  and  the  sub- 
stitute is  this:  the  former  authorizes  the  President  to  oc- 
cupy or  take  military  possession  of  Yucatan  ;  the  substitute 
authorizes  him  to  employ  the  army  and  navy  to  assist  the 
government  of  Yucatan  in  putting  an  end  to  the  unnatural 
warfare  carried  on  within  that  state.  In  the  first  case,  the 
government  would  be  virtually  superseded;  in  the  second, 
we  should  act  in  conjunction  with  it.  And,  sir,  if  we  should 
decide  to  act,  I  should  entertain  a  strong  hope  that  our  inter- 
position might  be  speedily  effectuah  With  the  moral  power 
of  our  victories  in  Mexico,  a  discreet  officer  going  there,  as 
much  in  the  capacity  of  a  pacificator  as  a  combatant,  might, 
aided  by  a  small  force,  be  able  to  restore  harmony  and  peace 
between  the  contending  parties. 

But  for  the  treaty  with  Mexico  and  the  armistice  entered 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  £91 

into  with  a  view  to  its  execution,  I  think  the  President 
would  be  fully  authorized,  in  the  conduct  of  the  war,  to  do 
all  that  is  proposed  by  the  bill.  It  is  the  peculiar  relation  in 
which  we  stand  to  Mexico,  of  which  Yucatan  is  a  part, 
which  presents,  in  my  judgment,  an  impediment  to  military 
occupation.  As  it  is,  the  treaty  being  in  force,  I  think  if 
we  had  troops  to  spare  in  Mexico,  they  might  be  sent  into 
Yucatan  by  the  President,  to  aid  the  government  in  bring- 
ing about  a  termination  of  hostilities.  If  the  Indians  should 
attack  the  Mexican  settlements  in  Coahuila  or  Durango, 
or  any  other  portion  of  the  republic,  does  any  one  doubt 
that  we  might  detach  a  portion  of  our  troops  in  Mexico  to 
aid  those  settlements  in  defending  themselves,  without  vio- 
lating the  armistice  or  the  treaty  ?  It  would  be  an  act  of 
friendship  and  of  mercy,  not  an  act  of  hostility ;  and  it  is 
only  against  offensive  operations  that  the  treaty  and  the  ar- 
mistice are  intended  to  guard.  The  honorable  Senator  from 
Mississippi  ^  suggests  that  the  terms  of  the  armistice  require 
that  we  should  interpose,  whenever  a  necessity  arises,  to  pro- 
tect any  part  of  the  Mexican  republic  from  the  incursions 
or  attacks  of  the  Indians ;  that  we  have  so  interposed ;  and 
he  considers  it  to  be  applicable  to  this  case.  Under  this 
view  of  the  subject,  the  interposition  of  Congress  is  re- 
quired, rather  with  a  view  to  provide  the  President  with  the 
means  than  to  confer  upon  him  the  authority  to  act.  But 
in  placing  the  army  and  navy  at  his  disposal,  for  a  special 
purpose  by  law,  it  seems  proper  to  define  the  conditions 
under  which  they  shall  be  employed.  This  is  done  by  the 
substitute,  which  declares  that  he  shall  act  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  government  of  Yucatan.  Thus  all  pretence 
of  violating  the  treaty  or  the  armistice  will  be  obviated. 

Is  there  any  violation  of  international  obligations,  so  far 
as  they  depend  on  principles  of  public  law,  in  extending  to 
Yucatan  the  required  assistance  ?  I  think  not.  We  are 
already  in  the  occupation  of  a  portion  of  Yucatan.     Our 

1  Mr.  Davis. 


292  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

fleet  has  for  a  long  time  been  in  possession  of  Laguna,  and 
thus  commanded  a  large  portion  of  the  coast.  We  have 
exercised  not  only  military  but  political  authority  there,  hold- 
ing stations,  imposing  duties,  and  collecting  revenue.  Indeed, 
Yucatan  complains  that  by  this  very  assumption  or  exercise 
of  authority  we  have  deprived  her  of  her  revenues,  and 
diminished  her  ability  to  provide  against  the  exigencies  in 
which  she  is  placed.  This  is  one  of  the  grounds  on  which 
she  appeals  to  us  for  succor.  She  asks  us  to  give  back  to 
her  in  one  way  the  means  we  have  taken  from  her  in 
another.  In  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  is  as  much  redress 
as  aid  which  she  seeks. 

Sir,  I  think  there  is  some  truth  in  what  she  says.  But 
whether  that  be  so  or  not,  the  very  fact  that  we  are  in  the 
occupation  of  a  portion  of  Yucatan  takes  the  whole  case  out 
of  the  ordinary  rule  of  non-intervention.  We  occupy  one 
of  her  seaports  under  the  laws  of  war.  To  aid  the  existing 
government  under  such  circumstances,  in  subordination  to 
its  own  wishes,  in  restoring  tranquillity  and  putting  an  end 
to  domestic  dissensions,  cannot  be  deemed  a  violation  of  the 
rule  that  one  nation  shall  not  interfere  in  the  domestic  con- 
cerns of  another.  Indeed,  but  for  the  treaty  we  might  in- 
terfere without  the  consent  of  the  government,  having  al- 
ready partial  occupation.  It  is  only  the  obligations  arising 
under  it  that  make  such  consent  necessary  at  all. 

If  we  were  at  peace  with  Mexico  and  Yucatan,  I  confess 
I  should  very  much  doubt  whether  we  could,  on  any  consid- 
eration of  humanity,  interpose  between  parties  engaged  in 
intestine  conflict  with  each  other,  however  strong  our  inclina- 
tion might  be.  I  will  not  say  that  there  are  not  obligations 
of  duty  to  our  fellow-men,  which  rise  above  all  the  restraints 
of  political  organization  and  government.  But  it  must  be  a 
very  extreme  case,  which  can  authorize  us,  even  from  motives 
of  humanity,  to  exercise  powers  not  expressly  conferred  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws  by  which  we  are  governed.  Nothing, 
perhaps,  short  of  an  exigency  threatening  to  uproot  the  very 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  298 

foundations  of  civilized  society,  or  concerning  our  own  self- 
preservation,  would  warrant  any  other  than  a  strictly  consti- 
tutional exercise  of  power.  But  I  see  no  such  embarrass- 
ment in  this  case.  Under  the  laws  of  war  —  by  virtue  of 
the  occupation  of  one  portion  of  Yucatan  —  it  appears  to 
me  that  we  may  perform,  in  respect  to  any  other  portion, 
every  obligation  which  humanity  dictates  and  enjoins.  I  have 
no  hesitation,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  right  of  interposition 
is  concerned,  to  vote  for  the  second  and  third  sections  of  the 
bill,  and  I  am  willing  to  vote  for  the  first  section  so  amended 
as  to  make  our  interposition  subordinate  to  the  government 
of  Yucatan,  to  make  it  an  act  of  friendship  to  her,  without 
being  an  act  of  hostility  to  Mexico. 

Mr.  President,  in  discussing  the  bill  providing  for  the 
satisfaction  of  certain  claims  in  California,  I  stated  that  the 
Indians  in  Yucatan  were  abundantly  supplied  with  arms, 
and  that  some  of  these  arms  were  of  British  manufacture. 
I  did  not  intend  to  intimate  that  they  were  furnished  by  the 
government  of  Great  Britain,  or  by  agents  acting  under 
her  direction  or  authority.  I  supposed  then,  as  I  suppose 
now,  that  they  were,  for  the  most  part,  procured  from  British 
traders  at  Balize,  in  the  way  of  exqjiange  ;  and  I  -have  been 
confirmed  in  that  belief  by  an  article  in  a  British  newspaper 
published  at  Kingston,  Jamaica,  stating  that  an  extermi- 
nating war  was  carried  on  by  the  Indians  in  Yucatan,  by 
means  of  arms  procured  from  British  traders,  and  condemn- 
ing the  latter  for  engaging  in  a  traffic  which  was  the  source 
of  so  much  wanton  violence  and  inhumanity. 

By  another  article,  taken  from  the  same  paper,  it  appears 
that  a  commissioner  has  been  sent  from  Yucatan  to  Balize  to 
invoke  the  observance  of  treaty-stipulations  by  Great  Britain 
in  respect  to  the  sale  of  arms  and  ammunition  to  the  Indians. 
I  will  read  it  to  the  Senate :  — 

"  The  Indians  had  been  waging  a  destructive  war  with  the  white  in- 
habitants of  the  State  of  Yucatan,  and  had  destroyed  the  large  villages 
of  Ajomeo  and  Ychmul,  and  possessed  themselves  of  almost  all  the 


2Q4f  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

towns  to  the  eastward  of  Peto  and  Valladolid.  A  commissioner  has 
arrived  at  Balize,  Honduras,  from  Yucatan,  to  prevent,  if  possible,  the 
sale  of  arms  or  warlike  stores  to  the  Indians." 

This  traffic  has  been  carried  on  in  violation  of  an  ancient 
treaty  with  Spain  ;  and  not  very  ancient  either.  By  the 
treaty  of  London,  17^6,  it  was  expressly  stipulated  by  Great 
Britain  that  she  would  strictly  prohibit  all  her 

"  Subjects  from  ftimishing  arms  or  warlike  stores  to  the  Indians  in 
general  situated  upon  the  frontiers  of  the  Spanish  possessions." 

Mr.  Sierra,  in  one  of  his  notes  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  states 
that  the  British  authorities  at  Balize  have  consented  to  pro- 
hibit the  sale  of  arms  and  ammunition  to  the  Indians, 
though  he  expresses  a  doubt  whether  the  assurance  will  be 
observed  in  good  faith.  I  should  have  inferred,  from  the 
assurance  thus  given,  that  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  re- 
ferred to  were  recognized  as  of  binding  force,  though  the 
pledge  might  have  been  given  from  motives  of  humanity. 
But  I  find,  by  an  article  in  the  "  Times, "  a  newspaper  pub- 
lished at  Balize,  that  the  British  authorities  have  refused  to 
recognize  the  obligation  of  the  treaty  of  1786.  I  will  read 
an  extract  from  it,  that  what  I  say  may  not  be  misunderstood : 

"  We  understand  that  Mr.  Peon  has  been  appointed  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Yucatan,  on  special  mission  to  her  Majesty's  superintendent, 
to  claim  for  his  government  the  benefit  of  the  treaty  of  1786,  entered 
into  between  their  Majesties,  the  kings  of  Great  Britain  and  Spain. 
In  that  treaty  there  is  a  clause  which  would  appear  to  bear  directly 
on  the  existing  state  of  affairs  in  Yucatan.   It  is  to  the  following  effect." 

Here  follows  the  stipulation  which  I  have  quoted.  The 
"  Times  "  then  continues  :  — 

"We  are  unable  to  communicate  the  grounds  on  which  we  learn 
that  her  Majesty's  superintendent  has  declined  to  admit  the  present  ap- 
plicability of  the  treaty.  It  must  be,  however,  known  to  all,  that  none 
of  the  neighbouring  Spanish  republics  can  be  properly  said  to  have  in- 
herited the  rights  which  the  Spanish  Crown  possessed  in  this  part  of 
the  world.  As  a  question  of  humanity,  however,  it  is  much  to  be  de- 
sired that  all  the  caution  which  can  be  exercised  by  our  merchants 
should  be  exercised  to  prevent  powder  or  arms  being  sold  to  the  In- 


THE   YUCATAN   BILL.  ^95 

dians ;  and,  even  as  a  ^natter  of  mercantile  speculation,  we  think  that 
it  will  usually  be  of  more  importance  to  our  trade  with  Yucatan, 
to  aid  in  reestablishing  order  in  that  province,  by  refusing  to  supply 
the  Indians.  We  subjoin  some  further  remarks,  which  we  have  re- 
ceived on  this  subject." 

These  remarks  are  in  the  nature  of  a  strong  appeal  to  the 
humanity  of  the  merchants.  It  does  not  appear  by  this  ar- 
ticle what  effort  the  British  authorities  at  Balize  have  made, 
if  any,  to  prevent  the  sale  of  arms  and  ammunition  to  the 
Indians.  But  it  does  appear,  that  they  deny  the  obligation 
of  the  treaty  of  IJSG,  And,  certainly,  the  inference  is, 
that  they  have  not  interposed  from  motives  of  humanity,  and 
prohibited  the  traffic;  for,  if  they  had,  this  appeal  by  a 
newspaper  to  the  humanity  of  the  merchants  would  have 
been  superfluous. 

Mr.  President,  it  would  be  a  very  harsh  judgment  to  sup- 
pose that  the  British  authorities  at  Balize  had  encouraged 
this  traffic  for  the  purpose  of  expelling  the  Spanish  race,  and 
thus  facilitating  the  extension  of,  the  dominion  of  their  own 
sovereign.  Even  if  it  were  for  the  interest  of  Great  Brit- 
ain to  do  so,  such  a  supposition  should  not  be  made  without 
the  strongest  evidence.  But,  sir,  I  do  not  think  it  unreason- 
able or  harsh  to  suppose  this  contest  is  encouraged  by  Brit- 
ish traders,  who  have  pecuniary  interests  there,  and  whose 
gains  might  be  increased  by  the  expulsion  of  the  Spanish 
race ;  for,  in  that  event,  the  whole  peninsula  would  fall  under 
the  dominion  of  the  Indians.  British  subjects  would  more 
readily  gain  a  foothold  there :  having  once  gained  it,  they 
would  be  protected  by  their  government ;  and  it  would  not 
be  surprising  to  see  the  protection  of  Great  Britain  extended 
over  the  Indian  population.  It  appears  to  me  that  we  can- 
not doubt  such  a  probability  without  wilfully  closing  our  eyes 
against  light.  This  process  of  extension  is  in  progress  at 
the  very  moment  when  we  are  discussing  and  doubting  it. 
Let  me  state  a  few  facts  in  reference  to  the  settlement  at 
Balize,  to  which  I  have  already  referred.     It  was  first  recog- 


£96  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

nlzed  specifically  as  a  British  settlement  by  the  treaty  of 
Versailles  in  I788,  though  there  is  a  provision  in  the  tripar- 
tite treaty  of  17^8?  (that  which  terminated  the  old  French 
war  here,)  recognizing  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  occupa- 
tion in  that  quarter  generally.  But  the  treaty  of  I788  is  the 
first  in  which  the  settlement  is  distinctly  recognized.  The 
right  of  occupation  was  given  for  a  specific  purpose.  It 
gave  only  the  right  to  cut  logwood,  build  houses  and  maga- 
zines for  the  convenience  of  the  workmen  and  their  families, 
and  to  enjoy  a  free  fishery  for  their  subsistence  on  the  coast. 
Great  Britain  expressly  stipulated  to  demolish  all  fortifica- 
tions, if  there  were  any,  and  to  erect  no  more.  The  sover- 
eignty of  Spain  was  distinctly  reserved.  The  limits  of  the 
territory,  in  which  these  advantages  were  to  be  enjoyed,  were 
carefully  defined.  I  have  traced  them  on  the  map,  and  I 
find  they  did  not  exceed  an  area  of  two  thousand  square 
miles,  if  the  rivers  Hondo  and  Balize,  the  northern  and 
southern  boundaries,  are  accurately  laid  down.  By  the 
treaty  of  I786  they  were  extended  south  to  the  river  Sibun, 
making,  at  the  utmost,  an  area  of  four  or  ^ve  thousand 
square  miles.  According  to  Arrowsmith's  "  London  Atlas," 
published  in  1840,  that  settlement  has  an  area  of  fourteen 
thousand  square  miles,  —  three  times  its  original  extent. 
Nor  is  this  all.  By  the  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  and 
Martin's  "  British  Colonies,"  it  is  claimed  to  have  an  area  of 
more  than  62,000  square  miles,  —  a  surface  exceeding  that 
of  the  entire  peninsula  of  Yucatan.  In  what  direction  it  is 
proposed  to  extend  the  settlement,  in  order  to  comprehend 
these  sixty  or  seventy  thousand  square  miles  of  surface,  does 
not  appear.  It  is  left  in  doubt  by  the  respectable  author- 
ities I  have  named,  under  the  most  ungeographical  declaration 
that  "  the  inland  boundaries  are  ill  defined,"  though  they 
were  most  critically  defined  by  the  treaties  of  1783  and 
1786.  With  this  shadowy  boundary,  which  leaves  every- 
thing undetermined,  excepting  on  the  side  of  the  Bay  of 
Honduras,  the   sea,  where  nature  has   drawn  a  line,  which 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL. 


297 


man  cannot  make  uncertain,  it  may  be  defined  hereafter  ac- 
cording to  circumstances.  They  may  be  extended  north  into 
Yucatan,  southwest  into  Guatemala,  or  southeast  into  Hon- 
duras, and  in  the  latter  case  form  a  junction  with  the  terri- 
tories of  the  Mosquito  king.    . 

And,  by  the  way,  the  name  of  this  newly  created  sover- 
eign reminds  me  that  there  are  some  indications  of  exten- 
sion further  south,  which  are  not  very  easily  discredited. 
By  the  treaty  of  Versailles,  Great  Britain  stipulated  that 
her  subjects  should  abandon  all  other  portions  of  the  Span- 
ish continent,  and  retire  within  the  limits  of  the  settlement 
at  Balize.  By  the  treaty  of  London,  she  stipulated  to 
evacuate  the  country  of  the  Mosquitoes  eo  nomine  as  well  as 
the  continent  in  general,  and  the  islands  adjacent,  without 
exception.  I  believe  she  did  evacuate  them,  and  I  am  not 
aware  that  she  has  occupied  the  country  of  the  Mosquitoes 
again  in  her  own  name.  But  she  has  done  what  is  equiva- 
lent to  occupation :  she  has  taken  the  king  of  the  Mosquitoes 
under  her  protection ;  she  has  assumed  to  define  the  limits 
of  his  dominions;  she  has  given  notice  to  the  Central  and 
South  American  governments,  that  they'  are  not  to  inter- 
fere with  those  limits ;  she  has  sent  ships  to  the  coast,  and 
troops  into  the  interior,  maintaining  the  former  there  under 
the  name  of  the  Mosquito  navy.  She  is  encroaching  on 
the  Central  American  states,  attacking  forts,  appropriating 
territory,  and  making  war  on  the  people.  It  is  only  about 
a  month  ago,  that  we  learned  she  had  attacked  and  taken 
possession  of  the  town  of  Nicaragua,  and  killed  some  seventy 
or  eighty  of  the  Central  Americans.  She  has  recently  sent 
black  troops  there,  not  only  from  Jamaica,  but  from  New 
Providence,  on  the  confines  of  Florida,  to  maintain  the 
authority  of  the  Mosquito  king,  —  the  chief  of  a  band  of 
naked  Indians,  himself  scarcdy  more  elevated  in  the  social 
scale  than  his  followers.  His  throne  a  sand-hill,  his  sceptre 
a  reed,  his  robe  a  blanket,  he  puts  armies  and  fleets  in  mo- 
tion, speaks  to  the  nations  through  the  mouths  of  British 

38 


^98  SPEECHES   IN   THE   SENATE. 

diplomatists,    and    invades    the    territories    of  neighboring 
states  by  sea  and  land,  with 

"  royal  banner,  and  all  quality, 

Pride,  pomp,  and  circumstance  of  glorious  war." 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  so  broad  a  farce  as  this  has 

never  been  enacted  with  so  much  gravity  by  a  respectable 

state.      It  would  be  a  farce  under  all  its  aspects,  were  it 

not   for   the    encroachments    upon    the    Central    American 

states,  of  which  it  is  the  source.     To  them  it  is  a  matter  of 

the  most  serious   import,  and  it  has  met  their  solemn  and 

repeated  protests. 

About  three  months  ago  I  stated,  in  some  remarks  on 
a  military  bill  before  the  Senate,  that  Great  Britain  has 
recently  set  up  a  claim  to  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua,  and  I 
prophesied  at  that  time,  from  the  indications  I  saw,  that  she 
would,  at  no  distant  period,  take  forcible  possession  of  that 
place.  She  has  done  so  already.  The  prophecy  has  become 
history,  written,  like  many  other  transactions  of  the  same 
nature,  in  letters  of  blood.  I  also  stated,  that  one  of  the 
great  objects  of  this  extension  was,  to  command  a  route  for 
a  ship-canal  across  the  continent,  narrowed  there  to  an  isth- 
mus. This  route  has  been  critically  surveyed  and  examined 
from  the  Caribbean  Sea,  up  the  river  San  Juan,  to  Lake 
Nicaragua,  from  Lake  Nicaragua  to  Lake  Leon,  and  from 
Lake  Leon  to  Realejo  on  the  Pacific.  Surveys,  drawings, 
maps,  plans,  diagrams,  estimates  —  everything  that  per- 
tains to  and  precedes  the  construction  of  public  works  — 
have  been  carefully  prepared.  I  believe  these  evidences 
and  achievements  of  a  high  intellectual  and  social  civiliza- 
tion are  not  pretended  to  be  the  work  of  the  Mosquito 
king ;  but  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  her  claim  to  ex- 
ecute this  great  enterprise  of  uniting  the  two  oceans 
should  be  asserted  in  his  name,  —  certainly  not  more  sur- 
prising than  some  other  things  which  have  been  recently 
done  under  the  same  auspices. 

The  river  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua  is  one  degree  south  of 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  £99 

the  southern  limit  of  the  Mosquito  territory.  According 
to  British  maps,  that  territory  extends  only  to  the  12th  de- 
gree of  north  latitude.  The  river  empties  into  the  Caribbean 
Sea  at  the  11th  parallel.  But  it  has  recently  been  claimed 
that  it  extends  to  the  11th,  with  an  intimation,  as  I  under- 
stand, that  it  may  possibly  extend  to  the  10th,  or  even  the 
9th,  which  would  include  a  part  of  Panama. 

Before  I  quit  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  will  read  to  the 
Senate  an  extract  from  the  "  Despatch,"  another  British 
newspaper,  pubHshed  at  Kingston,  Jamaica,  reciting  the 
grounds  on  which  this  claim  rests :  — 

"  The  differences  between  the  government  of  Central  America  and 
the  king  of  Mosquito  are  now  of  some  years'  standing.  The  former 
republic  has  never  acknowledged  the  sovereignty  claimed  by  King 
George  over  any  portion  of  the  territory  called  Mosquito  ;  and  on  nu- 
merous occasions  the  mahogany  cutters  engaged  with  the  Mosquito 
government,  for  which  they  paid  a  toll  up  the  river  Roman,  have 
been  disturbed,  and  driven  off  by  the  Central  Americans.  These  ag- 
gressions led  to  communications  between  the  council  of  Mosquito  and 
Downing  Street,  and  resulted,  if  we  were  rightly  informed,  in  direc- 
tions from  the  Foreign  Office,  that  the  boundaries  of  the  Mosquito  ter- 
ritory should  be  traced  according  to  the  best  existing  authorities,  doc- 
umentary or  otherwise,  and,  these  being  defined,  England  bound  her- 
self to  support  the  integrity  of  the  king's  dominions.  The  result  of 
this  survey  was  to  attach  the  whole  of  the  river  San  Juan  to  the  do- 
minions of  Mosquito,  and  the  flag  of  King  George  was  consequently, 
shortly  afterwards,  formally  hoisted  at  the  fort  of  San  Juan." 

Such,  according  to  this  authority,  is  the  claim  of  Great 
Britain  to  the  Mosquito  territory,  which  she  expressly  stipu- 
lated by  treaty  to  evacuate,  —  a  claim  resting  upon  an 
arrangement  with  the  Mosquito  government  which  has  never 
been  recognized  by  the  Central  Americans  as  an  indepen- 
dent state,  —  a  government,  in  fact,  alleged  to  have  been 
established,  or  rather  got  up  in  its  present  form,  by  Great 
Britain  herself;  and  it  would  seem  from  this  statement, 
which  is  sustained  by  other  evidence  corroborating  it,  that 
she  examines  documents  ex  parte^  traces  boundaries,  settles 
them   without   consultation  with   those   whom   they  vitally 


300 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


concern,  binds  herself  to  support  them,  and  acts  accordingly. 
A  more  summary  execution  of  the  law  of  force  cannot 
readily  be  found.^ 

Since  the  meeting  of  the  Senate  this  morning,  I  have 
received  a  copy  of  a  notice  from  the  British  consul-gen- 
eral in  Central  America,  addressed  to  the  Principal  Secre- 
tary of  the  Supreme  Government  of  Nicaragua,  in  Septem- 
ber last.     It  is  translated  from  the  English  into  Spanish. 


1  It  is  due  to  fairness,  inasmuch  as 
some  of  the  arguments  contained  in  the 
text  are  drawn  from  constructions  put 
upon  treaties  and  other  public  records 
by  the  Central  and  South  American 
states,  to  exhibit  the  grounds  on  which 
Great  Britain  rests  her  claim  to  the  au- 
thority she  is  exercising  in  the  country 
of  the  Mosquitoes.  They  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

1st.  "  Some  time  after  the  conquest 
of  Jamaica  by*  the  expedition  sent  forth 
by  Oliver  Cromwell,  in  1656,  the  Mos- 
quito king,  with  the  concurrence  of  his 
chiefs  and  people,  placed  themselves 
under  the  protection  of  Charles  the 
Second ;  and  the  governor  of  Jamaica, 
in  the  name  of  his  sovereign,  accepted 
this  union,  and  promised  them  the  royal 
protection." 

2d.  In  1749,  a  fort  was  erected  by 
a 'British  force  from  Jamaica,  and  the 
royal  flag  was  hoisted,  "thus  making 
a  formal  publication  to  all  the  world, 
and  to  the  Crown  of  Spain,  that  the 
independent  country  of  the  coast  was 
under  the  direct  sovereignty  and  pro- 
tection of  Great  Britain." 

3d.  "From  this  time  until  the  con- 
clusion of  the  war  of  1756,  the  Mos- 
quito shore  continued  to  be  a  mili- 
tary, federal,  protected  province  of 
Great  Britain." 

4th.  In  1765,  a  council  of  govern- 
ment was  appointed,  a  court  of  com- 
mon pleas,  &c. 

5th.  The  Mosquito  nation  was  never 
subjugated  by  Spain,  but  always  re- 
tained its  independent  character;  and 
"  the  Mosquito  territory  is  still  an  in- 
dependent country,  and  one  over  which 
Spain  never  had  the  least  control  or  oc- 
cupation." 

6th.  "  None  of  the  anarchical  states 
of  Central  America  have  any  right 
by  occupation,  or  by  recognition,  to 
the  Mosquito  country." 

7th.  "It  is  clearly  shown  in  the 
•works  of  writers  well  acquainted  with 


the  Mosquito  shore,  such  as  Darapier, 
Falconer,  Trobisher,  Bryan  Edwards, 
Hodgson,  and  others,  that  the  tribes 
under  the  Mosquito  kings  have  been 
independent  ever  since  the  downfall 
of  Montezuma,  and  have  had  a  recog- 
nized territory  appertaining  to  them- 
selves, and  governed  by  laws  admin- 
istered by  their  own  hereditary  kings." 

These  are,  in  brief,  the  grounds  of 
the  British  claim  to  the  protection  she 
is  exercising  over  the  Mosquito  terri- 
tory, and  more  especially  "  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  British  naval  forces  at 
St.  John's  on  the  Mosquito  coast,"  and 
they  are  stated  in  her  own  language. 
The  quotations  above  made  are  chiefly 
from  Macgregor's  "  Progress  of  Amer- 
ica," 739  et  seq. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  some 
of  the  material  facts  are  contradicted 
by  the  states  of  Central  America. 

In  respect  to  the  town  and  river  of 
San  Juan  de  Nicaragua,  Great  Britain 
contends  that  the  government  of  Cen- 
tral America  first  sent  a  force  down 
to  San  Juan,  and  established  a  custom- 
house on  the  north  side  of  the  river, 
which  the  Spaniards  had  never  before 
occupied,  in  1836 ;  that  it  was  done 
without  the  consent  of  the  king  of  the 
Mosquito  coast,  who  had  previously 
granted  the  territory,  where  it  was  es- 
tablished, to  a  British  subject ;  that  the 
Central  American  flag  did  not  appear 
there  till  1843 ;  and  that  the  "  admin- 
istrator," or  collector  of  customs,  on 
the  appUcation  of  a  British  officer,  gave 
a  written  acknowledgment  that  he  had 
hoisted  the  flag  by  courtesy,  and  not  as 
of  right,-  and  that  the  port  was  claimed 
by  the  king  of  Mosquito. 

She  also  states,  that  the  Mosquito 
authorities  have  remonstrated  against 
the  occupation,  and  that,  these  remon- 
strances having  failed,  her  naval  forces 
have  been  sent  to  aid  them  in  taking 
possession  of  the  place. 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  301 

I  have  only  had  time  to  look  at  it  so  as  to  see  its  purport; 
but  I  will  read  it  now  to  the  Senate,  translating  it  back  into 

English. 

"  British  Consulate  General, 

^^  Guatemala,  10th  September,  1847. 
"  To  the  Principal  Secretary  of  the  Supreme 

Government  of  the  State  of  Nicaragua. 
"  Sir :  Questions  having  arisen  at  various  periods,  with  the  states  of 
Honduras  and  Nicaragua,  concerning  the  extension  of  the  maritime 
frontier  of  the  kingdom  of  Mosquito,  her  Britannic  Majesty's  govern- 
ment, after  carefully  examining  the  various  documents  and  historical 
registers  which  exist  relative  to  the  subject,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
territorial  right  of  the  king  of  the  Mosquitoes  should  be  maintained  as 
extending  from  Cape  Honduras  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  San  Juan ; 
and  I  am  charged  to  notify  the  supreme  governments  of  the  states 
of  Honduras  and  Nicaragua,  as  I  have  now  the  honor  of  doing,  that  the 
government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  considers  that  the  king  of  Mos- 
quito has  a  right  to  this  extent  of  coast,  without  prejudice  to  the  right 
which  the  said  king  may  have  to  any  territory  south  of  the  river  San 
Juan;  and  that  her  Britannic  Majesty's  government  cannot  see  with 
indifference  any  attempt  to  usurp  the  territorial  rights  of  the  king  of 
Mosquito,  who  is  under  the  protection  of  the  British  crown. 

"  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

"  Frederick  Chatfield. 
"  Copy :  Department  of  Foreign  Relations  of  the  Superior  Govern- 
ment of  the  State  of  Nicaragua.     Mangua,  October  14,  1847. 

«  Salinas." 

It  will  be  seen  by  this  notice,  that  Great  Britain  lays  the 
foundation  for  a  claim,  in  behalf  of  the  Mosquito  king, 
to  territory  south  of  the  river  San  Juan,  leaving  the  boun- 
dary undefined.  This  note  bears  date  the  10th  of  September 
last.  And  it  is  a  curious  fact,  that  in  an  official  note,  bear- 
ing date  the  S4th  of  the  same  month,  addressed  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  New  Grenada,  no  intimation  is  given  of  such  a 
claim  south  of  the  river  San  Juan.  I  read  the  last-men- 
tioned note  while  addressing  the  Senate  on  the  California 
claims ;  and  the  omission  is  the  more  extraordinary,  as  the 
British  government  can  hardly  be  unadvised  that  New  Gre- 
nada claims,  jointly  with  the  Central  American  states,  the 
coast  of  the  Caribbean  Sea,  not  only  to  the  river  San  Juan, 


30£  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

but  as  far  north  as  Cape  Gracias  a  Dios.  The  object  of 
the  omission,  if  it  had  an  object,  must  be  left  to  conjecture. 
It  may  have  been  accidental,  or  it  may  be  that  Great  Britain 
did  not  think  it  advisable  to  alarm,  at  that  juncture,  the 
most  stable  of  the  governments  having  an  interest  in  the 
question,  by  putting  forth  a  claim  so  well  calculated  to 
excite  uneasiness. 

With  these  evidences  of  a  fixed  purpose  of  extension  and 
aggrandizement  of  Great  Britain  in  this  hemisphere ;  with 
our  vivid  recollection  of  the  tenacity  with  which  she  as- 
serted her  claim  to  territory  on  our  northeastern  boundary 
and  in  Oregon,  —  territory  remote  from  her,  chiefly  valuable 
because  it  encroached  on  us,  and  curtailed  the  limits  for  our 
expansion ;  with  the  still  more  fresh  and  vivid  recollection 
of  the  transactions  in  California,  with  a  view  to  obtain  a 
large  and  valuable  portion  of  that  territory  for  British  sub- 
jects ;  -^  with  these  evidences  of  a  purpose,  open  and  pal- 
pable, to  extend  her  own  dominion  upon  this  continent,  if 
not  to  prevent  the  extension  of  ours ;  I  am  really  surprised 
that  any  one  can  doubt  she  would  avail  herself  of  the  first 
opportunity  of  gaining  an  ascendency  in  Yucatan.  It  bor- 
ders upon  her  own  settlement  at  Balize,  and  is  separated 
from  it,  according  to  her  own  representation,  by  a  boun- 
dary "ill  defined."  Sir,  I  must  say  that  I  know  no  par- 
allel to  this  incredulity,  excepting  in  the  state  of  things  in 
Athens,  which  produced  the  third  philippic  of  Demosthe- 
nes, —  in  the  blindness  which  would  not  see  an  enemy  in 
Philip,  when  Phocis,  and  Pheree,  and  Elis,  and  Olynthus, 
and  the  two-and-thirty  cities  of  Thrace  had  fallen  into  his 
hands.  I  do  not  make  the  comparison  because  I  fancy  any 
other  resemblance  between  the  historical  features  of  that 
epoch  and  this.     In  other  respects,  the  parallel  fails.     I  do 

1  In  connection  with  this  subject,  I  her  Majesty's   government   has   been 

deem  it  due  to  fairness  to  state,  that  taking  any  steps  whatever  to  acquire 

Lord  Palmerston  has  instructed    her  any  footing  in   California";   and  that 

Britannic  Majesty's  representative  at  this  instruction  came  to  my  knowledge 

Washington  "  to  contradict,  on  all  oc-  after  this  speech  was  delivered, 
casions,  the  unfounded  assertion  that 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  303 

j  nbt  wish  any  member  of  this  honorable  body  to  see  an 
enemy  in  Great  Britain.  I  do  not  so  consider  her  myself. 
I  consider  her  as  a  friend  ;  I  desire  that  she  may  continue  so, 
at  most  a  rival  in  commerce,  in  the  generous  competition 
of  industry,  and  in  the  extension  of  civilization  and  freedom. 
I  do  not  envy  her,  or  its  legitimate  possessors,  the  domin- 
ion over  the  torrid  plains  of  Central  America,  —  that 
crust  of  earth  parched  by  a  raging  sun  above,  and  heated 
by  volcanic  fires  beneath.     Much  less  do  I  regard  her  ex- 

-  tension  in  our  neighborhood  with  apprehensions  for  our 
safety.  We  have  long  sincQ  grown  beyond  the  dimen- 
sions in  which  there  was  any  danger  to  be  apprehended 
from    the    extension    of  other   nations  upon  this  continent, 

(  no  matter  how  closely  they  may  be  brought  into  contact 
with  us.  But  I  make  these  statements  in  order  that  we 
may  see  what  is  actually  in  progress,  —  not  because  it  brings 
with  it  any  serious  cause  of  apprehension  on  our  own  ac- 

!  count,  but  that  we  may  not  coldly  turn  away  our  faces  when 
weak  and  defenceless  neighbors  are  invaded  and  despoiled. 
For  myself,  sir,  I  cannot  help  seeing  in  Great  Britain  a 
spirit  of  aggrandizement  which  is  perpetual  in  its  progress, 
not  on  this  continent  alone,  but  in  every  other  portion  of  the 
globe  where  there  is  territory  unoccupied,  and  too  often 
where  there  is  territory  occupied  by  those  who  are  too  weak 
to  defend  it.  I  believe,  also,  whether  this  conflict  in  Yuca- 
tan shall  terminate  in  the  expulsion  of  the  Spanish  race,  or 
the  discomfiture  of  the  aboriginal,  that  her  boundary  will 
be  likely  to  be  extended  further  into  the  interior.  That  "  ill- 
defined"  boundary  may  become  defined,  and  with  greatly 
enlarged  dimensions. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  nothing  more  to  say  upon  this 
point,  excepting  that  I  do  not  support  the  bill,  because  I 
think  the  occupation  of  Yucatan  by  us  is  necessary  to  keep 
it  out  of  the  hands  of  European  powers.  I  am  not  sure 
that  I  could,  except  under  very  extraordinary  circumstances, 
be  induced  to  advocate  the  military  occupation  of  a  country 


S04}  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

for  such  a  purpose.  But  if  we  see  movements  of  foreign 
powers  on  this  continent,  and  especially  in  our  near  neigh- 
borhood, which  are  suspicious,  we  have  a  right  to  call  on 
them,  through  the  ordinary  channels  of  diplomatic  inter- 
course, to  know  what  are  their  objects;  and  if  we  do  not 
receive  frank  and  satisfactory  answers,  if  we  have  reason  to 
believe  that  those  objects  are  in  violation  of  the  great  princi- 
ples of  international  right,  or  dangerous  to  our  tranquillity, 
or  even  our  interests,  we  may  properly  take  such  measures 
of  precaution  or  prevention  as  the  exigency  of  the  case 
shall  require.  I  do  not  undertake  —  indeed  it  might  not  be 
very  easy  —  to  assign  the  precise  measure  of  provocation 
which  would  justify  resistance  on  our  part,  or  the  extent  to 
which  resistance  might  be  rightfully  carried.  Every  emer- 
gency must  be  left  to  be  determined  by  a  wise  and  consid- 
erate regard  to  its  attending  circumstances.  But  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  right  of  resistance  on  grounds  of  inter- 
national law,  I  do  not  entertain  the  slightest  doubt. 

And  here,  Mr.  President,  I  must  ask  the  indulgence  of 
the  Senate,  while  I  look  hastily  into  the  nature  and  origin  of 
the  right.  Every  sovereign  state  is  to  be  considered  under 
two  aspects :  the  first  concerns  its  interior  relations,  the  re- 
lations which  exist  between  the  governing  and  the  governed, 
or,  in  other  words,  between  the  government  and  the  people ; 
the  second  concerns  its  exterior  relations,  or  its  relations 
with  foreign  states. 

The  first  class  only  is  ordinarily  the  subject  of  internal  or 
municipal  regulation.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  for  instance,  regulates  the  relations  of  the  federal 
government  to  the  states  and  to  the  people.  It  scarcely 
touches  the  exterior  relations  of  the  country,  excepting  so 
far  as  it  declares  in  what  departments  the  powers  of  making 
war,  peace,  and  treaties,  and  appointing  ambassadors,  shall 
vest.  Now,  it  is  quite  apparent  that  there  is  a  numerous 
class  of  exterior  relations  wholly  untouched  by  the  Constitu- 
tion,  not    always    regulated   by   treaty-stipulations.      Th 


1 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  305 

arise  out  of  the  natural  rights  and  obligations  of  sovereign 
states,  and  are  regulated  by  usage,  by  the  general  inter- 
national law  which  has  grown  up  and  become  sanctioned 
by  the  acquiescence  of  all  civilized  communities.  One  of 
our  vessels,  public  or  private,  cannot  go,  ten  miles  from  the 
land  without  becoming'  subject  to  an  international  code, 
not  founded  upon  the  internal  laws  of  states,  whether  or- 
ganic or  administrative,  not  regulated  ordinarily  by  treaty- 
stipulations  between  them,  but  as  old,  nevertheless,  as  the 
Consolato  del  Mare^  and  deriving  its  force  from  public 
consent. 

These  rights  and  duties  are  correlative.  What  one  na- 
tion is  bound  to  do,  any  other  may  call  on  it  to  perform. 
We  cannot  live  in  the  general  society  of  nations  without  ob- 
serving these  rules  ourselves ;  nor  can  we  consent  that  they 
shall  be  violated  by  others,  where  our  safety  or  interest  is 
concerned.  There  are  obligations  of  this  sort  applicable  to 
the  land  as  well  as  the  sea.  One  of  these  is,  that  no  nation 
shall  interfere  with  the  internal  concerns  of  another.  As  a 
member  of  the  great  family  of  nations,  we  have  a  right  to 
insist  that  this  rule  shall  be  observed.  In  all  cases,  where 
the  rule  or  the  principle  is  settled  beyond  dispute,  any  mem- 
ber of  the  general  society  of  nations  is  as  fully  warranted  in 
calling  upon  any  other  member  to  respect  it  as  any  member 
of  this  confederacy  is  authorized  to  call  upon  another  to  ob- 
serve the  obligations  of  the  fundamental  compact.  The 
only  question  that  can  arise  is  one  of  practical  prudence: 
how  far  we  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  interpose  to  prevent 
a  breach  of  international  obligations.  I  have  always  con- 
tended that,  even  for  this  purpose,  we  ought  not  to  interfere 
with  the  movements  of  European  powers,  when  those  move- 
ments relate  to  questions  strictly  European.  And  I  have 
insisted,  with  the  same  earnestness,  that  there  should  be  no 
interference  on  their  part  with  the  internal  concerns  of  the 
independent  states  in  this  hemisphere,  and  especially  in  our 
neighborhood,  involved  as  our  interests,  political  arid  com- 
39 


306  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE.  m 

m 

mercial,  are  in  their  tranquillity  and  exemption  from  domes- 
tic agitations. 

If  I  am  asked  for  the  origin  of  the  right  on  our  part  to 
interpose  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  a  breach  of  inter- 
national obligations,  I  refer  again  to  the  general  code  by 
which  all  civilized  states  are  governed.  As  to  the  mode,  I 
have  nothing  to  say.  I  repeat,  every  emergency  must  be 
determined  by  the  surrounding  circumstances  in  which  it  is 
presented.  Whether  we  shall  interpose  at  all,  is  a  question 
of  prudence,  a  question  undoubtedly  to  be  disposed  of  with 
the  greatest  deliberation,  when  it  is  proposed  to  make  it 
the  basis  of  practical  conduct. 

But  I  do  not  put  our  intervention  in  this  case  upon  the 
ground  either  of  resisting  unauthorized  interference  on  the 
part  of  other  nations,  or  of  anticipating  and  preventing  it. 
I  place  it  upon  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  we  stand 
in  relation  to  Yucatan,  circumstances  which  seem  to  me  to 
impose  on  us  an  obligation  independently  of  all  considera- 
tions even  of  humanity.  We  have  taken  possession  of  the 
principal  outlet  of  trade  in  her  chief  staple  productions,  and 
the  principal  inlet  for  the  foreign  commodities  which  she 
received  in  exchange.  We  have  appropriated  her  revenue 
to  ourselves.  We  even  went  so  far  as  to  impose  duties  on 
her  own  products,  carried  from  one  of  her  ports  to  another, 
though,  as  soon  as  this  was  ascertained  to  be  the  case,  direc- 
tions were  very  properly  given  by  the  President  that  they 
should  be  discontinued.  We  have  thus  not  only  taken  her 
own  revenues,  but  we  have  imposed  on  her  people  new  bur- 
dens by  taxing  the  transit  of  articles  which  were  previously 
exempt  from  duty.  I  do  not  intend  to  intimate  that  we 
have  done  anything  not  deemed  essential  to  the  successful 
conduct  of  the  war.  In  regard  to  the  revenue  which  we 
have  collected  at  Laguna,  I  have  endeavored  to  learn  the 
amount;  but  I  am  told  that  the  accounts  are  kept  in  connec- 
tion with  other  receipts  and  disbursements,  so  that  time  is 
required  to  separate  them.     The  Navy    Department,    how- 


THE  YUCATAN  BILL.  307 

ever,  has  been  able  to  ascertain  that  the  amount  collected 
has  been  between  fifty  and  sixty  thousand  dollars  for  a  por- 
tion of  the  last  year,  —  the  returns  for  the  year  not  being 
complete.  But  this  does  not  show  the  amount  that  we 
have  diverted  from  the  treasury  of  Yucatan.  We  all  know 
that  war  is  the  great  enemy  of  commerce;  and  it  must 
readily  be  seen  that  the  efiigct  of  our  hostile  operations  in 
Mexico  has  been  to  diminish  the  ability  of  Yucatan  to  meet 
the  exigency  in  which  she  is  placed.  It  seems  to  me,  that, 
if  she  had  no  other  claim  than  this,  in  addition  to  the 
consideration  that  she  has  been  neutral  throughout  the  con- 
test, she  might  very  properly  call  upon  us  for  aid.  If 
we  cannot  act  from  motiv'es  of  humanity,  if  we  feel  con- 
strained to  regard  this  question  as  one  to  be  determined 
according  to  the  coldest  and  most  rigid  maxims  of  political 
prudence,  may  we  not  find,  nevertheless,  in  the  circum- 
stances I  have  stated,  an  appeal  to  our  justice  which  we 
cannot  readily  set  aside  1  I  think  so ;  and  it  is  upon  this 
ground  chiefly  that  I  place  my  support  of  this  bill. 

In  performing  this  act  of  justice,  it  is  a  grateful  reflec- 
tion that  we  may  also  perform  an  act  of  humanity ;  that  we 
are  enabled  to  turn,  for  the  moment,  from  the  painful  duty 
of  assaulting  towns  and  overrunning  provinces  —  a  duty 
imposed  on  us  by  the  prosecution  of  hostilities  with  Mexico 
—  to  the  more  congenial  office  of  extinguishing  the  flames 
of  internal  discord,  and  of  reconciling  classes  which  are 
waging  against  each  other  an  exterminating  war.  Sir,  I 
cannot,  fancy  a  more  striking  contrast  in  the  social  and  polit- 
ical condition  of  two  nations  than  that  which  exists  between 
the  United  States  and  Yucatan,  —  in  the  prosperity  and 
tranquillity  of  the  one,  and  in  the  disorder  and  desola- 
tion of  the  other.  The  law  presides  here  in  her  majesty, 
spreading  her  broad  shield  over  all.  Industry  and  the  arts, 
helpless  infancy,  decrepit  age,  life,  liberty,  property,  all  that 
men  possess,  and  cherish,  and  hold  dear,  are  protected  by 
the  power  of  a  moral  opinion,  which  lies  at  the  foundation 


308  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

of  the  established  order  of  government  and  society,  and  uj 
holds  both.  If  we  turn  to  our  Central  American  neighbor^ 
the  whole  picture  is  reversed :  law,  order,  tranquillity,  the 
friendly  association  of  classes  and  castes,  all  have  per- 
ished ;  the  moral  and  physical  ties  which  render  life  desir^ 
able  and  human  possessions  secure  have  been  forcibly  rent 
asunder ;  towns  and  villages  have  been  given  to  the  flames, 
and  their  wretched  inhabitants  to  the  sword;  plantations 
have  been  ravaged;  farm-houses  sacked,  demolished,  burnt 
property  plundered  where  it  could  be  carried  away,  anc 
destroyed  where  it  could  not ;  men,  women,  and  children^ 
driven  from  their  homes,  (if,  indeed,  they  are  so  fortunat 
as  to  escape  the  fury  of  their  remorseless  pursuers,)  rusl 
to  the  sea,  in  the  hope  of  finding  some  passing  vessel  whicl 
may  take  them  from  the  blackened  and  desolated  land. 

"  Incendia  fumant. 

Muris  nulla  fides.     Squalent  populatibus  agri, 
Et  medio  spes  sola  man."  .... 

Sir,  this  is  a  mere  outline  of  the  picture  of  devasta-j 
tion  which  Yucatan  presents.  I  would  not,  if  I  could, 
undertake  to  fill  it  up  with  its  loathsome  and  revolting 
details.  I  do  not  draw  this  sketch,  imperfect  as  it  is,  for 
the  purpose  of  making  an  appeal  to  the  sympathy  of  the 
Senate.  I  only  present  it  for  the  purpose  of  adding  a  final 
remark. 

If  honorable  Senators  shall  think  with  me  that  it  is 
our  right  and  our  duty  to  interpose ;  if  they  shall  con- 
sent to  act  in  the  mode  proposed  by  the  bill,  or  in  some 
other  mode,  which  may  seem  to  them  more  free  from  objec- 
tion ;  if  the  effect  of  our  interposition  shall  be  to  put  an  end 
to  this  unnatural  warfare,  to  restore  peace  to  Yucatan,  to 
give  back  her  desolated  fields  and  plains  to  industry  and 
order,  and  the  dominion  of  law ;  it  will  constitute,  in  the  sight 
of  civilization  and  humanity,  a  far  more  ennobling  triumph 
than  a  dozen  victories  won  for  the  extension  of  empire  at 
the  point  of  the  bayonet  and  the  cannon's  mouth. 


A  TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON. 

The  bill  establishing  a  territorial  government  in  Oregon  excluded 
slavery,  by  declaring  to  be  valid  and  operative  all  laws  then  existing 
in  the  territory.  One  of  these  laws  expressly  prohibited  slavery  and 
involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  for  the  punishment  of  crimes 
whereof  the  party  should  be  duly  convicted.  Mr.  Davis  of  Mississippi 
had,  before  Mr.  Dix's  speech  was  delivered,  offered  an  amendment  pro- 
viding that  there  should  be  no  prohibition  of  domestic  slavery  while  the 
territory  remained  "  in  the  condition  of  a  territory  of  the  United  States." 
Mr.  Dix's  speech  was  delivered  on  the  26th  June,  1848,  and  the  bill 
was  passed  on  the  12th  of  August  ensuing,  with  the  restrictions  and 
prohibitions  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  one  of  which  was  an  express 
exclusion  of  slavery. 

Mr.  President:  During  the  present  session  of  Congress, 
propositions  have  been  repeatedly  introduced  into  the  Senate 
involving  the  question  of  slavery.  I  have  abstained  from 
all  participation  in  the  discussions  to  which  they  have  given 
rise,  because  I  considered  them  as  abstract  propositions  hav- 
ing no  direct  practical  bearing  or  effect.  The  measure  before 
us  is  of  a  different  character.  It  contemplates  an  act  of 
legislation;  it  proposes  a  law  containing  provisions  to  be 
enforced  and  to  control  the  inhabitants  of  a  district  of  coun- 
try more  than  two  hundred  thousand  square  miles  in  extent. 
By  this  act  we  are  literally  laying  the  foundations  of  a  future 
empire.  It  is  a  subject  eminently  practical ;  and  therefore 
I  speak. 

The  questions,  to  which  the  discussion  of  the  bill  has  given 
rise,  are  of  the  highest  moment.  They  concern  the  power 
of  Congress  over  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  and  especially  in  respect  to  slavery  in  such  territory. 
Nor  is  this  all.     They  involve  not  only  the  authority  of  Con- 


310  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

gress,  under  the  Constitution,  to  regulate  the  domestic  con- 
cerns of  the  persons  inhabiting  or  occupying  the  public 
domain  beyond  the  limits  of  the  States,  but  they  may  affect 
for  an  indefinite  period  the  social  and  political  condition  of 
entire  communities.  They  may  vitally  concern  the  prosper- 
ity of  the  future  millions  who  are  to  fill  the  valleys  and  cover 
the  hills  of  Oregon ;  and  it  is  due  to  the  magnitude  of  the 
subject  that  it  should  be  discussed  with  calmness  and  with- 
out asperity  either  of  feeling  or  of  language.  Conducted 
in  such  a  spirit,  discussion,  even  if  it  were  unnecessary, 
could  not  do  harm,  however  widely  we  may  differ,  or  how- 
ever delicate  the  questions  with  which  it  has  to  deal.  Indeed, 
it  is  always  possible  the  very  conflict  of  opinion  may  strike 
out  light  and  truth,  and  furnish  a  basis  for  an  amicable 
adjustment  of  differences,  which  would  otherwise  have  been 
irreconcilable,  It  may  be  a  vain  hope  to  expect  to  harmon- 
ize those  who  are  now  so  wide  apart;  but  if  it  prove  a 
delusion,  it  may  nevertheless  be  profitable  to  indulge  it.  It 
may,  at  least,  serve  to  moderate  the  tone  of  discussion. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  on  this  and  other  kindred 
topics,  various  propositions  have  been  advanced ;  and  they 
have  been  sustained  with  distinguished  ability.  Some  of 
these  propositions  are  repetitions  of  the  same  general  assump- 
tion under  different  phases.  For  instance,  it  has  been  as- 
sumed that  the  citizens  of  any  State  in  the  Union  have  a 
right  to  go  into  any  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States, 
and  take  with  them  whatever  is  recognized  as  property  by 
the  local  law  of  the  State  from  which  they  migrate.  It  is 
also  a^umed  that  the  inhabitants  of  a  territory  cannot,  by 
any  legislative  enactment,  prevent  the  citizens 'of  any  State  in 
the  Union  from  coming  into  the  territory  with  whatever  the 
local  law  of  such  State  recognizes  as  property.  These  are 
little  else  than  verbal  modifications  of  the  same  proposition ; 
or,  at  least,  the  one  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  other. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  contended  that  the  inhabitants  of  a 
territory  belonging  to  the  United  States  have  an  inherent 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       31 1 

right  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  concerns  for  themselves, 
wherever  the  jurisdiction  of  the  soil  they  inhabit  may  reside, 
and  without  being  overruled  by  the  sovereign  political  power 
to  which  they  are  subordinate. 

There  is  a  question  which  lies  beyond  all  these  proposi- 
tions, and  which,  if  it  can  be  satisfactorily  answered,  must 
be  decisive  of  them  all,  because  it  includes  them  all.  Has 
Congress  the  right,  under  the  Constitution,  to  legislate  for 
the  territory  of  the  United  States,  organize  governments  for 
the  inhabitants  residing  in  such  territory,  and  regulate  within 
it  all  matters  of  local  and  domestic  concern  1  I  believe  this 
question  can  be  satisfactorily  answered  in  the  affirmative ; 
that  the  power,  to  this  unlimited  extent,  can  be  sustained 
1st,  by  contemporaneous  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  thel 
Constitution  and  the  intention  of  its  framers ;  Sd,  by  judi- 
cial interpretation ;  and  8d,  by  the  whole  practice  of  the 
government,  from  its  foundation  to  the  present  day. 

This  is  the  fundamental  question  I  propose  first  to  discuss, 
I  shall  lay  aside  all  consideration  of  subordinate  propositions. 
These  necessarily  fall,  if  the  other  can  be  established.  My 
purpose  is,  to  attempt  to  establish  it ;  and  in  all  I  have  to 
say  I  shall  endeavor  to  be  strictly  argumentative. 

The  power  of  regulating  all  matters  concerning  the  public 
dgmaiiiJQhink  „m^^  fairly  be  considered  a  necessary  incident 
to  the  power  of  acquiring  territory ;  and  this  not  only  in 
respect  to  the  disposition  which  may  be  made  of  the  naked 
soil,  as  it  has  been  denominated,  but  in  respect  to  the  classes 
of  persons  who  are  permitted  to  occupy  it,  and  the^  conditions 
of  the  occupation.  I  consider  this  unrestricted  power  as  an 
inseparable  incident  of  sovereignty,  to  be  exercised  by  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  organized  community  or  state  in 
which  it  resides.  The  power  of  acquisition  is  itself  unre- 
stricted by  the  terms  of  our  social  compact,  so  far  as  the 
objects  of  acquisition  are  concerned.  It  is  incidental  also. 
It  is  derived  from  the  power  of  making  war  and  treaties ; 
and  the  limits  to  the  exercise  of  these  powers  are  to  be  found 


S12  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


" 


in  fundamental  rules  and  principles  applicable  to  all  organized 
societies. 

But  I  do  not,  for  the  purposes  of  my  argument,  place  the 
power  on  this  ground.     I  assign  to  it  an  origin  less  likely,  I 
think,  to  be  questioned.     I  place  it  on  that  provision  of  the 
Constitution  which  gives  Congress  "  power  to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  terri- 
tory or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States." 
.     /I  am  aware  that  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  has  recently 
yreceived   a   construction    which    confines  the  action    of  the 
/government  in  respect  to  the  public  domain  to  the  narrowest 
/    possible  limits, — a  construction  which  leaves  to  Congress  the 
/     mere  right  to  regulate  the  mode  in  which  the  public  land 
1      shall  be  surveyed,  brought  into  market,  and  sold,  without 
I     any  power  to  regulate  the  political  or  municipal  affairs  of 
I     those  who  settle  upon  it,  while  they  are  acquiring  the  requi- 
I     sites  usually  exacted  as  conditions  of  their  admission  into 
the  Union.      This  construction  is  subversive  of  every  idea 
of  sovereignty  in  the  state  (I  use  the  word  in   its  largest 
sense)  as  the  owner  of  the  soil.     It  reduces  the  government 
^  of  the  United  States  to  the  condition  of  a  mere  individual 
proprietor  of  land,  without   a  singk,a#rihute. of -pol^ 
power.     Such  a  consequence  could  never  have  been  contem- 
plated by  the  framers   of  the  Constitution  as  likely  to  be 
drawn  from  the  clause  in  question.     On  the  contrary,  I  am 
satisfied  they  regarded  it  as  conferring  a  power  of  the  most 
plenary  nature.     I  shall  endeavor  to  make  this  apparent  to 
the  Senate ;  and  in  doing  so  it  will  be  necessary  to  look  at 
the  history  of  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  referred  to. 

On  the  18th  of  August,  IJ^J,  Mr.  Madison  introduced 
into  the  Federal  convention,  then  engaged  in  framing  the 
Constitution,  a  series  of  propositions,  in  order  to  be  referred- 
to  the  Committee  of  Detail.     Among  them  were  these  :  Tc 
authorize  Congress 

"  To  dispose  of  the  unappropriated  lands  of  the  United  States. 

"  To  institute  temporary  governments  for  new  states  arising  therein." 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       313 

On  the  22d  of  August,  Mr.  Rutledge,  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  Detail,  made  a  partial  report  on  Mr.  Madison's 
propositions,  and  on  others  submitted  by  Mr.  Pinckney  on 
the  20ih,  Mr.  Madison's  propositions,  above  quoted,  pro- 
viding for  the  disposal  of  the  unappropriated  lands  and  the 
institution  of  temporary  governments  for  new  states  aris- 
ing therein,  were  not  reported  by  the  cpmmittee.  But, 
on  the  80th  of  August,  Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  introduced 
the  clause  respecting  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  which,  with  a  few  immaterial  verbal  alterations,  is 
now  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  After  Mr.  Luther  Martin 
had  offered  an  amendment,  which  was  rejected,  the  clause 
was  adopted,   Maryland  alone  dissenting. 

It  may  not  distinctly  appear  at  first  glance  what  Mr. 
Madison  designed  by  the  institution  of  temporary  govern- 
ments for  "  new  states  arising  within  "  the  unappropriated 
lands.  It  might  be  supposed  that  he  intended  to  provide 
for  their  temporary  government  as  states  after  their  erection 
or  formation.  But  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  parlia- 
mentary phraseology  of  that  day,  will  have  no  doubt  that 
the  term  states  was  used  as  we  now  employ  the  term  terri- 
tories. ""^ 

But  be  this  so  or  not,  it  is  certainly  not  fair  to  say,  as  has 
been  said,  that  it  shared  the  fate  of  the  proposition  to  confer 
upon  Congress  the  power  to  grant  charters  of  incorporation, 
to  establish  a  university,  and  to  construct  canals,  &c.  These 
propositions  were  distinctly  presented  to  Congress,  and  for- 
mally and  decisively  negatived  by  a  direct  recorded  vote,  as 
may  be  seen  by  referring  to  the  proceedings  of  the  con- 
vention on  the  14th  of  September. 

It  was  not  so  with  Mr.  Madison's  proposition  in  respect 
to  the  unappropriated  lands  of  the  United  States.  The  most 
that  can  be  said  is,  that  the  committee  were  not  in  favor  of 
it  in  its  original  form.  There  was  no  vote  on  it  in  that  form 
in  convention  —  no  rejection.  The  proposition  of  Mr.  Mor- 
ris, which  is  now  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  was  manifestly, 

40 


314  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

from  its  terms  as  well  as  the  circumstances  and  the  sul^ecti 
matter,  intended  as  a  substitute  for  it.  It  was  adopted  al- 
most without  opposition.  The  power  it  is  construed 
confer  has  been  exercised  from  the  earliest  period  in  our  his 
tory.  The  attention  of  the  convention  was  distinctly  drawi 
to  the  subject  by  Mr.  Madison ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  an  authority  so  general  as  that  of  making  "all  needful 
rules  and  regulations"  respecting  the  territory  belonging  to 
the  United  States  (the  term  regulations  being  used  at  that 
time  much  as  we  now  use  the  term  laws)  could  have  been 
conferred,  without  question,  if  it  had  been  intended  to  with- 
hold the  power  of  providing  for  the  government  of  the 
individuals  inhabiting  it  until  they  were  admitted  into  the 
Union. 

On  the  18th  of  July  preceding,  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  had  passed  the  celebrated  ordinance  of  VJ^*J^ 
in  relation  to  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river. 
This  fact  could  hardly  have  been  unknown  to  the  members 
of  the  convention.  Congress,  it  is  true,  was  sitting  in 
New  York,  while  the  convention  sat  in  Philadelphia.  I 
believe  the  proceedings  of  both  were  with  closed  doors ;  but 
the  members  of  the  latter  were  doubtless  made  acquainted 
with  the  proceedings  of  the  other.  This  fact  —  the  coin- 
cidence in  point  of  time —  may  have  some  slight  bearing 
upon  the  intention  of  the  clause  giving  Congress  power 
to  dispose  of  and  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect- 
ing the  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States. 

The  opinion  of  Mr.  Madison  has  been  quoted  to  prove 
the  illegality  of  the  ordinance  of  1787'  This_  being- con.-., 
ceded,  it  cannot  by  any  supposed  consequence  or  analogy 
have  any  bearing  on  the  power  of  legislation  by  Congress, 
under  the  Constitution,  in  respect  to  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  territories  of  the  United  States.  The  ordi- 
nance, as  we  know,  was  passed  by  Congress  under  the 
articles  of  confederation,  though  it  was  ratified  by  the  first 
Congress  which  assembled   under  the    Constitution.     Any 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       315 

inference  from  the  proceedings  of  the  one,  so  far  as  the  ques- 
tion of  power  is  concerned,  would  be  wholly  inapplicable  to 
the  other.  But  I  hold,  and  shall  endeavor  to  show,  that  the 
very  argument  in  which  Mr.  Madison  denied  the  authority 
of  Congress,  under  the  articles  of  confederation,  to  pass  the 
ordinance  of  1787jjiad  for  its  object  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  such-  a  power  in  Congress  under  the  Constitution,  and  that 
it  proceeded  upon  the  supposed  existence  of  the  power.' 

The  usual  reference  to  prove  the  illegality  of  the  ordinance 
is  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  the  88th  number  of 
the  "  Fe4eralist,"  which  was  written  by  him.  I  will  read 
an  extract  from  it  referring  to  the  Western  territory. 

"  We  may  calculate,  therefore,  that  a  rich  and  fertile  country,  of  an 
area  equal  to  the  inhabited  extent  of  the  United  States,  will  soon 
become  a  national  stock.  They  have  begun  to  render  it  productive. 
Congress  have  undertaken  to  do  more :  they  have  proceeded  to  form 
new  States ;  to  erect  temporary  governments ;  to  appoint  officers  for 
them ;  and  to  prescribe  the  conditions  on  which  such  States  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Confederacy.  All  this  has  been  done,  and  done  with- 
out the  least  color  of  constitutional  authority." 

What  was  the  object  of  this  reference  ?  Was  it  to  pass 
a  useless  comment  upon  the  conduct  of  Congress  in  exceed- 
ing its  powers  1     By  no  means.     He  adds :  — 

"  I  mean  not  by  anything  here  said  to  throw  censure  on  the  measures 
pursued  by  Congress.  I  am  sensible  they  could  not  have  done  other- 
wise. The  public  interest,  the  necessity  of  the  case,  imposed,  upon  them 
the  task  of  overleaping  their  constitutional  limits.  But  is  not  the  fact 
an  alarming  proof  of  the  danger  resulting  from  a  government  which 
does  not  possess  regular  powers  commensurate  to  its  objects  ?  " 

The  whole  article,  taken  together,  and  not  judged  by  a 
single  extract,  appears  to  me  to  lead  almost  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion  that  Mr.  Madison  regarded  the  new  system 
of  government,  the  Constitution,  as  supplying  defects  which 
had  led  to  abuse  and  usurpation  under  the  old,  the  Confed- 
eration;  that  he  considered  the  former  as  remedying  the  very 
defects  which  had  imposed  on  Congress  the  necessity  of 
overleaping  the  constitutional  limits  of  their  power ;  that  he 


316  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

viewed  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  authorizing  Con 
gress  "  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  reg- 
ulations respecting,  the  territory"  of  the  United  States 
/conferring  the  power  which,  in  his  opinion,  Congress  h; 
/  usurped,  and  as  giving  legality,  under  the  Constitution, 
I  proceedings  which  he  condemned,  under  the  Confederatio; 
as  void  of  constitutional  authority. 

Happily,  sir,  we  are  not  left  to  mere  inference  in  respe^ 
to  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison  on  this  point.     If  we  tu 
to  the  48d  number  of  the  "  Federalist,"  also  written  by  hi 
we  shall  find  a  direct  reference  to  the  clause  in  the  Consti 
tution   concerning   the   territory  of  the  United  States.     I 
^^  there  were  any  doubt  before,  I  think  this  would  dissipate  ii 
!        He  is  speaking  of  certain  powers  conferred  on  Congress  b 
the  Constitution.     He  says :    "  The  eventual    establishmen 
of  new  states  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  by  the  co 
pilers  of  that  instrument  [Articles  of  Confederation].     W( 
have  seen  the  inconvenience  of  this  omission,  and  the 
j   sumption  of  power  into  which  Congress  have  been  led  b 
/   it.     With  great  propriety,  thereforej^has  the  new^syste 
/     supplied  the  defect." 

/^  He  next  quotes  the  clause  giving  Congress  "power 
dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  n 
specting,  the  territory  "  of  the  United  States ;  and  adds, 
"  This  is  a  power  of  very  great  importance,  and  required 
by  considerations  similar  to  those  which  show  the  propriety 
of  the  former."  By  the  former,  is  meant  the  power  of 
admitting  new  states  into  the  Union,  —  a  power  which  he 
had  adverted  to  as  supplying  a  defect  in  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation, and  as  avoiding  the  evil  of  usurping  the  exercise  ^ 
of  an  indispensable  authority.  Would  he  have  denominated 
it  a  "^wer  of  yery^  great  importance,"  if  he  had  regarded 
it  as  limited  to  a  mere  sale  of  the  public  lands'?  Would 
he  have  said  that  it  was  "required  by  considerations-similar 
to  those  which  show  the  propriety  of  the  former,"  —  the 
admission  of  new  states,  —  unless  he  had  considered  it  as 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       gl'J' 

having  "  supplied  a  defect,"  as  in  the  other  case  to  which 
he  had  referred,  and  empowered  Congress  to  do  what  it  had 
done  in  respect  to  the  Northwestern  territory  without  au- 
thority ?  There  were  other  territories  beside  that  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  to  be  provided  for.  South  Carolina  had  at  that 
very  time  ceded  to  the  United  States  her  interest  in  the 
territory  east  of  the  Mississippi,  now  comprised  in  the 
States  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama;  North  Carolina  and 
Georgia  were  expected  to  cede  what  now  constitutes  Ten- 
nessee, and  the  residue  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama.  Mr. 
Madison,  in  the  88th  nuniber  of  the  "  Federalist,"  written  a 
year  after  the  ordinance  of  17^7  was  adopted,  obviously 
alludes  to  those  two  last  cessions  as  reasonably  to  be  ex- 
pected. How  were  these  territories,  and  that  which  South 
Carolina  had  ceded,  to  be  provided  for ;  how  were  tempo- 
rary governments  to  be  erected ;  how  were  officers  to  be 
appointed  for  them ;  how  was  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  to  be  extended  over  them?  Was  it  not  under  the 
clause  of  the  Constitution  authorizing  "  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  "  to  be  made  1  Was  it  not  in  contemplation  of 
these  organic  arrangements  for  the  communities  which  were 
to  arise  within  the  territory  then  acquired,  and  expected  to 
be  acquired,  that  Mr.  Madison  pronounced  that  clause  as 
conferring  "  3  pf^wf>y  nf  yt^ry  grt^J^f  j"^p^^tf^"^^  "  ^ 

The  reasonings  contained  in  these  two  numbers  of  the 
"  Federalist,"  (the  38th  and  the  48d,)  are  directly  connected 
by  Mr.  Madison  himself;  and  when  considered  in  conjunction 
with  his  subsequent  participation  in  legislative  acts,  by  which 
the  ordinance  of  17^7  was  enforced  and  similar  provisions 
applied  to  other  portions  of  the  public  domain,  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  in  respect  to- the  powers  of  Congress 
over  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  cannot  well  be 
doubted.  But  if  any  lingering  doubt  should  remain  in  re- 
spect to  Mr.  Madison's  opinion  as  to  the  right  of  Congress 
to  regulate  municipal  concerns  of  the  persons  residing  upon 
the  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States,  it  will  be  re- 


318  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

moved  by  his  declaration  in  Congress  in  1790,  that,  though 

Congress  was  restricted  by  the  Constitution  from  taking 

measures  to  abohsh  the  slave-trade,  yet  there  was  a  variety 

of  ways  in  which  it  could  countenance  abolition,  "and  regu- 

I  lations  might  be  made  in  relation  to  the  introduction  of  them 

I  [slaves]  into  the  new  States  to  be  formed  out  of  the  western 

^^erritory." 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  explaining  Mr.  Madison's 
opinion,  not  only  on  account  of  the  high  authority  which  it 
carries  with  it,  but  because,  from  the  manner  in  which  it 
has  been  cited,  it  might  seem  to  support  conclusions  which, 
in  my  judgment,  derive  no  strength  from  it  whatever. 

Let  me  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  acts 
of  Congress  by  which  this  construction  of  the  Constitution 
is  supported,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  force  it  de- 
rives from  legislative  precedents. 

I.  The  ordinance  of  1787  was  recognized  by  chapter  8, 
^  1st  session,  1st  Congress.  The  preamble  recites  that  "  it  is 
requisite  certain  provisions  should  be  made,"  &c.,  in  order 
that  the  said  ordinance  "  may  continue  to  have  full  effect." 
^here  was  no  division  in  either  House  upon  its  passage. 
There  seems  to  have  been  no  objection  to  it.  Mr.  Madison's 
name  occurs  on  the  Journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  day 
on  which  the  bill  passed  the  House,  of  which  he  was  a 
member.  He  was  doubtless  present,  and  concurred  in  the 
i  measure. 

This  first  precedent  which  I  cite,  has  all  the  force  of  con- 
temporaneous exposition.  It  is  coeval  with  the  birth  of  the 
new  government.  It  may  almost  be  denominated  the  work 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  recorded  among 
the  earliest  acts  by  which  that  instrument  was  put  in  opera- 
tion. It  is  one  of  the  first  footsteps  by  which  the  movement 
of  the  new  government  is  to  be  traced  out  of  the  darkness 
in  which  its  dawn  was  enveloped,  into  the  clear,  broad  sun- 
light of  its  stability  and  strength.  The  act  was  signed  by 
General  Washington. 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       319 

That  the  ordinance  was  not  deemed  by  its  framers,  or  by 
the  Congress  which  continued  it  in  force,  incompatible  with 
any  degree  of  freedom  from  restraint,  which  may  be  justly 
claimed  as  essential  to  political  liberty,  is  apparent  from  the 
terms  of  the  instrument  itself.  The  articles,  of  which  the 
sixth  and  last  prohibited  slavery,  were  expressly  declared 
to  be  adopted,  "for  extending  the  fundamental  principles  of 
civil  and  religious  liberty,  which  form  the  basis  whereon 
these  republics,  their  laws  and  constitutions,  are  erected; 
to  fix  and  establish  those  principles  as  the  basis  of  all  laws, 
constitutions,  and  governments,  which  forever  hereafter  shall 
be  formed  in  the  said  Territory ;  to  provide  also  for  the 
establishment  of  States,  and  permanent  government  therein, 
and  for  their  admission  to  a  share  in  the  Federal  councils 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  at  as  early 
periods  as  may  be  consistent  with  the  general  interest." 

Several  considerations  suggest  themselves  in  connection 
with  this  subject. 

1.  Neither  the  framers  of  the  ordinance  nor  the  first 
Congress  considered  the  perpetual  prohibition  of  slavery  in 
the  Northwestern  territory  inconsistent  with  the  admission 
of  the  States  to  be  formed  out  of  it  into  the  Union  on 
equal  footing  with  the  original  States."  Neither  the  actual 
tenure  of  slaves,  nor  the  right  to  hold  them,  could  have 
been  considered  essential  to  the  full  fruition  of  the  political 
liberty  which  the  States  possessed  as  members  of  the  Union. 

2.  The  prohibition  was  not  considered  inconsistent  with 
the  terms  of  cession  of  the  territory  by  Virginia  in  1784f, 
which  required  that  the  States  to  be  formed  out  of  it  should 
be  "  republican  States,  and  admitted  members  of  the  Fed- 
eral Union,  having  the  same  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom, 

'  and  independence."  These  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom, 
and  independence,  therefore,  which  the  members  of  the 
Federal  Union  enjoyed,  were  by  the  Congress  of  the  Con- 
federation, and  the  first  Congress,  deemed  fully  possessed, 
although  the  right  to  hold  slaves  was  prohibited.     Virginia 


S20  SPEECHES  m   THE   SENATE. 

concurred  in  passing  the  ordinance  in  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  in  1787?  and  in  continuing  it  in  force  in  the^ 
first  Congress  under  the  Constitution  in  1789.  * 

^^^'  Whatever  doubt  there  may  be  as  to  the  original  validity 
of  the  ordinance,  I  believe,  its  authority  has  always  been 
respected  by  responsible  tribunals.  I  will  read  a  decision 
from  the  Supreme  Court  of  Louisiana,  in  the  case  of  Merry 
V,  Chexnaider,  8  Martin's  Reports,  (new  series,)  699:  — 

"  On  appeal  from  the  Court  of  the  First  District,  Porter,  J.,  de- 
livered the  opinion  of  the  court.  The  plaintiff  sues  in  this  action  to 
recover  his  freedom,  and  from  the  evidence  on  record  is  clearly  entitled 
to  it.  He  was  born  in  the  Northwestern  Territory  since  the  enact- 
ment of  Congress,  in  1787,  of  the  ordinance  for  the  government  of  that 
country,  according  to  the  6th  article  of  which  there  could  be  therein 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude.  This  ordinance  fixed  forever 
the  character  of  the  population  in  the  region  over  which  it  is  extended, 
and  takes  away  all  foundation  from  the  claim  set  up  in  this  instance 
by  the  defendant.  The  act  of  cession  by  Virginia  did  not  deprive  Con- 
gress of  the  power  to  make  such  a  regulation. 

"It  is  therefore  ordered,  adjudged,  and  decreed,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  district  court  be  aflSrmed  with  costs." 

This  decision  was  pronounced  in  1880,  and  it  fully  sus- 
tains the  view  of  the  subject  I  have  taken. 

11.  On  the  7th  of  April,  1798,  an  act  was  passed  for 
an  amicable  settlement  of  limits  with  the  State  of  Georgia, 
and  authorizing  the  establishment  of  a  government  in  the 
Mississippi  territory.  This  act  authorized  the  President 
to  establish  therein  a  government  in  all  respects  similar  to 
that  in  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river,  ex- 
cepting the  sixth  article  of  the  ordinance  of  1787-  It  then 
prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the  Territory  from 
any  place  without  the  limits  of  the  United  States.  This 
act  was  passed  ten  years  (less  a  few  months)  before  Con- 
gress was  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  slaves  into  the  States  which  were  originally 
parties  to  the  Federal  compact.  This  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution applied  only  to  the  then  existing  States.     It  did 


A  TERRITOKIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       S21 

not  extend  to  the  States  thereafter  to  be  formed,  or  to  the 
territories  of  the  United  States,  —  a  fact  of  the  highest  im- 
portance, if  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  hmitation  of  a  vested 
power.  The  exercise  by  Congress  of  the  power  of  pro- 
hibiting the  introduction  of  slaves  into  the  Mississippi  Ter- 
ritory from  foreign  countries  appears  to  have  passed  without 
opposition.  I  find  no  division  in  either  House  on  that  clause 
of  the  bill.  This  fact  shows  the  jandisputed  interpretation 
put  jit  that  day  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
in  respect  to  the  powers,  of  Congress  over  every  matter  of 
domestic  concern  in  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  and  especially  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  most 
delicate  of  all.  There  was  a  direct  exercise  by  Congress,  in 
respect  to  the  territories,  of  a  power  which  was  positively 
prohibited  in  respect  to  the  States  existing  at  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution.  This  act  passed  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  elder  Adams. 

III.  At  the  first  session  of  the  6th  Congress,  chap.  41, 
laws  of  1800,  an  act  was  passed  to  divide  the  territory  ^  \  ^ 
belonging  to  the  United  States  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river  ^^ 
into  two  separate  governments.  This  act  created  a  territorial 
government  for  Indiana  in  all  respects  similar  to  that  pro- 
vided by  the  ordinance  of  17^7  for  the  government  of  the 
Northwest  territory.  This  precedent  reaffirms  the  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  ordinance.     The  act  was  signed  by 

the  elder  Adams. 

IV.  On  the  26th  of  March,  1804,  an  act  was  passed 
dividing  Louisiana  into  two  territories,  and  providing  for 
the  temporary  government  thereof.  All  that  part  of  the 
territory  south  of  the  S8d  parallel  of  latitude,  now  the  south- 
ern boundary  of  Arkansas,  was  erected  into  the  territory 
of  Orleans. 

The  10th  section  of  the  act  had  three  provisions  in  respect  . 
to  slavery  in  the  Territory :   1 .  The  importation  of  slaves,  i^ 
from  any  place  without  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  was 
prohibited ;  2,  The  importation,  from  any  place  within  the 

41 


S22  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

limits  of  the  United  States,  of  slaves  imported  since  the  1st 
May,  1798,  was  prohibited;  and,  8.  The  importation  of 
slaves,  except  by  a  "  citizen  of  the  United  States  removing 
into  said  Territory  for  actual  settlement,  and  being  at  the 
time  of  such  removal  bona  fide  owner  of  such  slaves,"  was 
prohibited. 

When  this  section  was  under  discussion  in  the  Senate,  a 

motion  was  made  to  strike  out  the  last  clause,  and  it  was 

{negatived  by  a  vote  of  19  to  9.     Among  the  votes  in  the 

negative    were   John   Breckenridge    and   John    Brown    of 

Kentucky,  Jesse  Franklin  of  North  Carolina,  James  Jackson 

of  Georgia,  Samuel  Smith  of  Maryland,  Thomas  Sumpter 

jof  South  Carolina,  William  H.  Wells  and  Samuel  White  of 

Delaware  ;  8  of  the  19  from  slaveholding  States. 

N'/jfv  The  House  Journal  does  not  show  any  opposition  to  this 

^^  section.     The  vote  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  was^  66 

yeas  and  J21  nays.     Of  the  latter,  only  7 — ^^^  third  of  the 

whole  number  —  were  from  slaveholding  States. 

The  territory  of  Orleans  appears  to  have  remained  sub- 
j  ject  to  these  restrictions  —  certainly  all  but  the  first  —  until 
181£,  when  it  was  erected  into  a  State,  with  the  name  of 
Louisiana.  At  least  I  can  find  nothing  to  the  contrary.  On 
the  Sd  March,  1805,  an  act  further  providing  for  the 
government  of  the  Territory  was  passed,  by  which  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  was  applied  to  it,  except  the  sixth  article,  pro- 
hibiting slavery  forever,  and  so  much  of  the  second  para- 
graph as  regulated  the  descent  and  distribution  of  estates. 
But,  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  act,  the  act  of  March  S6, 
1804<,  dividing  the  territory  of  Louisiana,  which  was  limited 
in  its  operation  to  one  year  and  to  the  end  of  the  next  session 
of  Congress  thereafter,  was  continued  in  full  force  until  re- 
pealed, excepting  so  far  as  it  was  repugnant  to  the  act  of 
1805.  The  restrictions  on  the  importation  of  slaves  were 
not  repugnant  to  that  act,  and  they  must  have  been  contin- 
ued in  operation.  I  state  this  fact  because  it  has  been  sup- 
posed and  asserted  that  the  act  of  1804  was  repealed  the 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       g^S 

next  year ;  as  though  Congress  had  passed  it  inconsiderately, 
and  had  thus  early  become  convinced  of  the  illegality  of  the 
restrictions  upon  slavery  which  it  contained.  But  the  lan- 
guage of  the  act  of  1805  cannot  be  held  to  repeal  these 
restrictions.  There  is  no  authority  for  such  a  construction. 
On  the  contrary,  I  find  a  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of 
Louisiana,  showing  that  they  were  continued  in  force.  I  will 
read  an  extract  from  it  to  the  Senate :  — 

"  Formerly,  while  the  act  dividing  Louisiana  into  two  territories 
was  in  force  in  this  country,  slaves,  introduced  here  in  contravention 
to  it,  were  freed  by  operation  of  law ;  but  that  act  was  merged  in  the 
legislative  provisions  which  were  subsequently  enacted  on  the  subject 
of  importation  of  slaves  into  the  United  States  generally."  —  Gomez 
V.  Bonneval,  6  Martin's  Rep,  656,  {Sup.  Court  of  La.)  1819.  | 

J 

The  general  law  referred  to  went  into  operation  on  the 

1st  of  January,  1808.  If,  therefore,  there  was,  as  this  de- 
cision shows,  a  merger  in  1808,  there  could  have  been  no 
repeal  in  1805. 

There  cannot  be  a  stronger  case  to  show  the  control  Con- 
gress has  exercised  over  the  subject.  Slavery  existed  in 
Louisiana  when  it  was  ceded  to  the  United  States.  Con- 
gress did  not  impose  any  restriction  on  the  tenure  of  slaves  _ 
then  held  in  the  Territory :  thatjpoight-have  impaired  vested  ^ 
rights  of  property  under  the  local  law^^^wfeitih  the  United'-*^ 
States  had  covenanted  in  the  treaty  of  cession  to  maintain 
and  protect.  But  Congress  not  only  proceeded,  at  once,  to 
prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  from  foreign  countries,  but 
to  prohibit  their  introduction  from  the  States  of  the  Union, 
excepting  when  accompanying  and  belonging  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States  moving  into  the  Territory  to  become  resi- 
dents. This  was  to  impose  restrictions  upon  its  extension, 
even  within  the  Territory  in  which  it  existed.  It  was  a  di- 
rect prohibition  of  the  domestic  slave-trade.  It  was  an  exer- 
cise of  power,  in  respect  to  the  territories,  which  Congress 
did  not  possess  in  respect  to  the  States.  It  was  an  anticipa- 
tion, by  four  years,  of  the  time  at  which  Congress  was  au- 


S24i  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

thorized  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the  origi- 
,  nal  States.     This  act  was  signed  by  Jefferson. 

^^  V.  On  the  11th  January,  1805,  an  act  was  passed  estab- 
lishing the  territory  of  Michigan,  with  a  government  "in 

y'  all  respects  similar  to  that  provided  by  the  ordinance  of  Con- 
gress, passed  on  the  13th  day  of  July,  17^7?  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  northwest  of 
the  river  Ohio." 

VI.  On  the  3d  of  February,  1809,  a  similar  government 
was  established  for  the  territory  of  Illinois.  These  two 
last  acts  also  passed  under  Mr.   Jeiferson's  administration. 

VII.  On  the  4th  of  June,  1812,  an  act  was  passed  "pro- 
"^^viding  for  the  government  of  the  territory  of  Missouri,"  and 

the  laws  and  regulations  in  force  in  the  district  of  Louisiana 
were  continued  in  operation. 

VIII.  On  the  8d  March,  1817,  a  government  was  formed 
^    for  the  territory  of   Alabama,  and    the  laws    then  in  force 

^  within  it  as  a  part  of  Mississippi  w^ere  continued  in  opera- 
^      tion.     These  two  acts  were  passed  under  Mr.  Madison. 

IX.  On  the  2d  March,  1819,  the  territory  of  Arkansas 
was  formed  from  the  territory  of  Missouri,  and  a  govern- 
ment established  for  it. 

X.  On  the  6th  March,  1820,  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri 
were  authorized  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  govern- 
ment, and  slavery  was  prohibited  in  all  that  part  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Louisiana  north  of  86°  SO'  north  latitude.  In  this 
exercise  of  legislative  power  the  greatest  latitude  is  given 
to  the  authority  claimed  under  the  clause  of  the  Constitution 
respecting  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 

XL  On  the  80th  March,  1822,  an  act  was  passed  for  the 
establishment  of  a  territorial  government  in  Florida,  con- 
taining provisions  making  it  unlawful  "  to  import  or  bring 
into  the  said  Territory,  from  any  place  without  the  limits  of 
the  United  States,"  any  slave  or  slaves. 

These  three  acts  were  passed  under  Mr.  Monroe's  admin- 
istration. 


A   TERRITORIAL   GOVERNIVIENT  IN   OREGON.       3^5 

XII.  On  the  £Oth  April,  1886,  an  act  was  passed  "estab- 
lishing the  territorial  government  of  Wisconsin,"  securing 
to  the  inhabitants  "  the  rights,  privileges,  and  advantages  " 
secured  to  the  people  of  the  Northwestern  territory  by  the 
ordinance  of  IJ^Ji  subjecting  them  to  the  "  conditions,  re- 
strictions, and  prohibitions"  contained  in  said  ordinance,  and 
extending  the  laws  of  the  United  States  over  them.  This 
act  was  signed  by  General  Jackson. 

XIII.  On  the  l£th  June,  1888,  a  territorial  government 
for  Iowa  was  established,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
extended  over  it.  This  act  was  signed  by  Mr.  Van 
Buren. 

And  here,  Mr.  President,  I  close  this  rapid  specification 
of  legislative  precedents,  commencing  with  the  first  Con- 
gress, and  running,  with  a  current  of  authority  uninter- 
rupted and  almost  unopposed,  through  more  than  half  a 
century,  down  to  the  present  day. 

By  looking  through  these  acts,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
power  of  governing  the  persons  occupying  the  territory 
belonging  to  the  United  States  has  been  exercised  by  Con- 
gress in  almost  every  form,  and  for  a  great  variety  of  pur- 
poses, municipal  as  well  as  political. .  Officers  have  been 
appointed,  their  qualifications  prescribed;  the  right  of  suf- 
frage fixed,  limited,  and  extended;  the  descent  and  distribu- 
tion of  estates  regulated ;  courts  organized  and  their  'powers 
defined;  personal  rights  secured;  and,  in  general,  the  whole 
power  of  legislatioTi  has  been  controlled  by  Congress  through 
the  supervision  it  has  retained  over  the  laws  passed  by  the 
legislative  assemblies  of  the  territories. 

Let  me  now  see  how  far  this  exercise  of  legislative  power 
has  been  sanctioned  by  judicial  interpretations.  I  quote 
from  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  highest  judicial 
tribunal  in  the  United  States.  That  court,  in  reference  to 
the  clause  of  the  Constitution  giving  Congress  power  to  dis- 
pose of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect- 
ing, the  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States,  say :  — 


S26  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

"  Perhaps  the  power  of  governing  a  territory  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  which  has  not,  by  becoming  a  State,  acquired  the  means 
of  self-government,  may  result  necessarily  from  the  facts  that  it  is  not 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  State,  and  is  within  the 
power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  The  right  to  govern 
may  be  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  right  to  acquire  territory. 
Whichever  may  be  the  source  whence  the  power  is  derived,  its  pos- 
8essf(^  is  unquestioned."—-  Chief  Justice  Marshall;  the  American 
Insurance  Company  v.  Canter,  1  Peters,  542. 
y  "  The  power  given  in  this  clause  is  of  the  most  plenary  kind^  Bules 
/  jajid«4:egulations  respecting  the  territory  of  the  United  States :  th^ 
\  neiiegsarily  CQqfer  CQmplele_juri^dict^^  It  was  necessary  to"w3er 
it  without  limitation,  to  enable  the  new  government  to  redeem  the 
pledge  given  to  the  old  in  relation  to  the  formation  and  powers  of  the 
new  States."  —  The  Cherokee  Nation  v.  The  State  of  Georgia,  5 
Peters,  44. 

"  The  term  *  territory,'  as  here  used,  is  merely  descriptive  of  one  kind 
of  property,  and  is  equivalent  to  the  word  *  lands,'  and  Congress  has 
the  same  power  over  it  as  over  any  other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States ;  and  this  power  is  vested  in  Congress  without  limitation, 
and  has  been  considered  the  foundation  upon  which  the  territorial 
governments  rest.  In  the  case  of  McCuUoch  v.  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, 4  Wheaton,  422,  the  Chief  Justice,  in  giving  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  speaking  of  this  article  and  the  powers  of  Congress  growing 
out  of  it,  applies  it  to  the  territorial  governments,  and  says  all  admit 
their  constitutionality.  And  again,  in  the  case  of  the  American  Insur- 
ance Company  v.  Canter,  1  Peters,  542,  in  speaking  of  the  cession 
.  of  Florida,  under  the  treaty  with  Spain,  he  says  that  Florida,  until 
,  she  shall  become  a  State,  continues  to  be  a  territory  of  the  United 
States,  governed  by  virtue  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  which 
empowers  Congress  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect- 
ing the  territory  or  other  property  of  the  United  States." —  The 
United  States  v.  Gratiot  et  al.  14  Peters,  537. 

I  might  refer  to  other  decisions  of  the  court,  in  which 
the  same  principle  is  recognized,  though  less  directly  per- 
haps, but  sustaining  the  same  interpretation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  giving  validity  to  the  legislative  precedents  I  have 
cited.  Writers  on  constitutional  law  (Rawle,  Sergeant, 
Story)  concur  in  this  construction.  In  short,  it  is  believed 
that  no  power  exercised  under  the  Constitution  of  such 
magnitude  as  that  of  governing   the  territories   belonging 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       S2^ 

to  the  United  States  has  been  more  uniformly  acquiesced 
in  from  the  formation  of  the  government  to  the  present  day, 
and  in  all  its  departments,  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial. 
No  system  of  rules  would  be  safe,  if  its  authority  could  be 
disputed  and  overturned,  in  the  face  of  such  comprehensive 
and  long-continued  sanctions.  Government,  law,  social  and 
political  order,  would  become  unstable,  uncertain,  and  worth- 
less, as  safeguards  either  to  property  or  life,  if  their  founda- 
tions could  be  thus  sapped  and  undermined  by  logical  sub- 
tlety and  refinement,  by  new  versions  of  the  Constitution 
at  war  with  its  ancient  interpretations,  and  running  counter 
to  the  whole  course  of  the  public  administration  from  the 
earliest  periods  of  time. 

And  here,  Mr.  President,  I  dismiss  the  question  of  power. 
If,  as  I  think,  the  affirmative  is  sustained,  something,  never- 
theless, remains  to  be  considered.  A  power  may  be  pos- 
sessed, and  yet  it  may  not  be  right  to  exert  it.  Its  exercise 
must  be  justified  by  considerations  of  public  or  private  advan- 
tage :  it  must  not  work  either  public  or  private  wrong.  I 
propose  to  consider  it  under  this  aspect. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  I  intend  to  say  nothing  in  regard 
to  private  interests  excepting  this,  that  there  is  no  proposi- 
tion before  us  to  interfere  with  slavery  where  it  exists,  no 
restriction  on  the  exercise  of  private  or  personal  rights  with- 
in the  sphere  of  the  local  laws  under  which  they  arise.  The 
question  before  us  is,  whether  slaves  shall  be  permitted  to  be 
introduced  into  Oregon,  or  whether  their  introduction  shall 
be  prohibited.  It  is  a  remote  territory,  generally  conceded 
(though  in  this  I  do  not  concur,  as  I  shall  hereafter  explain 
more  fully)  as  not  likely  to  be  occupied  by  slaves,  if  they 
were  allowed  to  be  carried  there.  The  fact  that  it  is  gener- 
ally admitted  to  be  unfit  for  slave  labor  must  divest  the  ques- 
tion of  all  practical  infringement  of  private  rights,  even  in 
the  estimation  of  those  who  take  extreme  views  of  the  sub- 
ject. I  shall  therefore  consider  it  only  in  its  bearing  upon 
great  public  interests. 


S2S  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Mr.  President,  I  consider  this  question,  in  the  form  it  has 
assumed,  as  involving  the  extension  of  slavery.  I  consider 
it  so  under  the  motion  to  strike  out  the  twelfth  section,  w^hich 
substantially  prohibits  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  Oregon. 
But  it  is  made  so  more  particularly  by  the  amendment  offered 
by  my  friend  from  Mississippi,^  which  provides  — 

•^   "  That  nothing  contained  in  this  act  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  au- 
f      thorize  the  prohibition  of  domestic  slavery  in  said  territory  whilst  it 

V  remains  in  the  condition  of  a  temtory  of  the  United  States." 

f  I  understand  this  as  an  assertion  of  the  right  to  carry 
I  slaves  into  Oregon,  both  against  the  interference  of  Congress 
and  the  desire  of  the  inhabitants  to  exclude  them.  I  under- 
stand it  as  maintaining  the  right  to  introduce  domestic  sla- 
very into  Oregon.  This  is  extension,  and  against  the  wishes 
of  the  inhabitants  who  have  prohibited  its  introduction.  Let 
me,  then,  present  some  considerations  concerning  this  whole 
subject  of  extension. 

Those  who  oppose  the  extension  of  slavery  to  wider  lim- 
its believe  that  such  extension  promotes  the  multiplication  of 
slaves.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  contended  that  it  makes  no 
addition  to  their  numbers,  but  merely  spreads  them  over  a 
k,  /^  broader  surface.     This  position  is  believed  to  be  wholly  in- 

V  consistent  with  all  the  received  Jaws_ofjgopulation.  The 
i^^  tendency  of  the  human  race  is  to  increase  in  a  compound 
i    /ratio  of  the  extent  and  productiveness    of  the    surface    on 

^  which   it   is    sustained.     The   highest   possible   impulse   is 

^    given    to   this    increase    in    an    unoccupied    country,  distin- 

•i^     guished  for  its  fertility,  and  offering  certain  rewards  for  the 

^     products  of  labor.     This  is  the  character  of  our  own  soil. 

Wherever  slave  labor  can  be  carried,  it  will,  for  a  time,  be 

productive.     Missouri  aflfords  a    strong   illustration    of  the 

truth  of  this  proposition.     That  State  lies  wholly  north  of 

36°  80',  north  latitude,  excepting  a  strip  about  thirty  miles 

wide  on  the  Mississippi,  running  down  to  the  thirty-sixth 

parallel ;  and  yet,  though  so  far  north,  slavery  made  rapid 

1  Mr.  Davis. 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       3^9 

progress  there  after  her  admission  into  the  Union.  By  the 
census  of  1820,  there  were  10,222  slaves;  in  1830, 
24^,820,  an  increase  of  one  hundred  and  forty  per  cent,  in 
ten  years ;  and  in  1840,  58,240,  an  increase  of  one  hundred 
and  thirty-five  per  cent,  in  ten  years.  For  several  years,  the 
slave  population  increased  more  rapidly  than  the  free.  In 
all  new  and  fertile  soils,  where  the  demands  for  labor  are 
urgent,  this  will  be  the  inevitable  result.  The  multiplication 
of  the  human  species  is  governed  by  laws  as  inflexible  and 
certain  as  those  which  govern  the  reproduction  of  vegetable 
life.  In  both,  the  stimulus,  whatever  it  may  be,  constitutes 
the  law  of  the  increase.  I  am  aware  that  the  ratio  of  in- 
crease in  Missouri,  both  in  respect  to  the  white  and  the 
black  race,  was  materially  modified  by  immigration ;  and  to 
that  extent  the  result  is  independent  of  the  application  of 
the  principle  I  have  stated.  But  it  can  hardly  be  denied 
that  surface,  productive  surface,  is  the  great  element  in  our 
extension.  It  is  this  alone  which  has  carried  the  ratio  of 
our  increase  far  beyond  that  of  any  other  people.  If  we 
had  been  restricted  to  the  area  of  the  thirteen  original 
States,  how  different  would  have  been  the  result  of  our  de- 
cennial enumerations !  The  same  principle  governs  the  white 
and  the  black  races.  The  laws  of  labor,  subsistence,  and 
population  act  on  both,  though  not  everywhere  with  the 
same  intensity. 

If  these  conclusions  are  just,  an  enlargement  of  the  sur- 
face over  which  slavery  is  spread  carries  with  it,  by  force  of 
invincible  laws,  a  multiplication  of  the  race  held  in  bondage : 
in  other  words,  a  substantial  increase  of  the  number  of 
slaves.  Extension  in  respect  to  surface  is  multiplication  in 
point  of  number.  The  two  propositions  cannot  be  legiti- 
mately separated  either  in  reasoning  or  in  practice.  In  this 
view  of  the  subject,  the  extension  of  slavery  is  a  reproduc- 
tion of  the  original  responsibility  of  introducing  it ;  and  in 
this  respect  it  has  a  moral  bearing,  to  which  the  great  mass 
of  the  community  cannot  be  indifferent. 

42 


380  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

Mr.  President,  in  providing  for  the  government  of  our 
territories,  while  they  continue  subject  to  the  exclusive  reg- 
ulation of  Congress,  no  view  of  the  subject  would  be  com- 
plete which  overlooks  the  part  we  are  performing  in  the 
great  movement  of  civilized  society,  on  both  sides  of  the 
Atlantic.  Let  us  turn  our  attention  to  some  of  the  consid- 
erations which  suggest  themselves  in  connection  with  this 
point.  It  requires  no  powers  of  prophecy  to  foretell  that  we 
are  destined  to  spread  ourselves  over  the  greater  portion  of 
the  American  continent  on  this  side  the  great  lakes,  —  south 
to  the  densely  peopled  portions  of  Mexico,  and  west  to  the 
Pacific.  Nor  is  it  an  idle  dream  of  the  imagination  to  fore- 
see in  our  political  organization  the  foundations  of  an  em- 
pire increasing  more  rapidly,  and  destined  to  expand  to 
broader  limits,  than  the  Roman  republic:  not  an  empire, 
like  the  latter,  founded  in  war,  and  propagating  itself  by  brute 
force,  but  an  empire  founded  in  peace,  and  extending  itself 
by  industry,  enterprise,  and  the  arts  of  civilization.  Rome, 
in  receiving  into  her  bosom  the  surrounding  population  as 
she  conquered  them,  instructed  them  in  the  art  of  war, 
and  made  them  the  instruments  of  new  aggressions.  We 
receive  into  ours  the  surplus  population  of  the  Old  World, 
to  instruct  them  in  the  arts  of  peace,  and  to  accelerate  the 
march  of  civilization  across  the  western  continent.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  history  of  human  society  so  calculated  to 
exalt  it  as  the  spectacle  we  present,  —  receiving  into  the 
bonds  of  friendship,  and  admitting  to  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship, the  surplus  of  the  over-peopled  and  over-governed 
countries  of  Europe.  These,annual  additions  constitute  an 
element  of  no  inconsiderable  force  in  the  ratio  of  our  pro- 
I  gression.  In  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  —  about  the 
/  period  we  take  for  a  duplication  of  our  numbers  —  we  have 
j  received,  from  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  alone,  nearly  a  million  of  immigrants,  and  from 
\  continental  Europe  we  have  had  large  additions.  These 
drains,  on  the  one  hand,  and  accessions,  on  the  other,  are 


I 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       gSl 

not  only  likely  to  continue,  but  to  increase  in  force.  A  sur- 
plus population,  provided  for  by  emigration,  is  certain  to  be 
regularly  reproduced.  Europe,  therefore,  will  not  be  nu- 
merically weakened  by  these  annual  drains,  even  though 
they  should  be  indefinitely  augmented ;  and  every  addition  to 
our  numbers  from  abroad  renders  the  force  of  immigration 
more  intense,  by  relaxing  the  ties  which  bind  to  their  native 
soil  the  kindred  multitudes  left  behind. 

For  an  indefinite  period,  then,  we  may  calculate  on  large 
and  constantly  increasing  additions  to  our  population  by  im- 
migration ;  and  the  natural  multiplication  of  our  own  peo- 
ple, under  the  impulse  of  the  powerful  stimulants  contained 
in  a  soil  of  extraordinary  fertility,  and  in  the  superabundant 
supply  of  food,  will  doubtless  maintain  our  past  rate  of  in- 
crease, and  give  us,  at  the  close  of  the  present  century,  a 
hundred  millions  of  inhabitants. 

One  of  the    most   interesting  and  important  problems, 
both  for  the  American  statesman  and  philosopher,  is  to  de- 
termine  of  what  race  or  races  this   vast  population  shall 
consist ;  for  on  the  solution  which  future  generations  shall 
give  to  it,  will  essentially  depend  the  prosperity  of  the  com- 
munity   or    communities    they    will    constitute,    and    their 
I   ability  to  maintain  such  a  form  of  government  as  shall  se- 
cure to  them  the   blessings  of  political  liberty  and  an  ad- 
vanced civilization.     In  a  general  survey  of  the  races   by 
which  the  earth  is  peopled,  though  the  varieties  are  infinite, 
j   there  are  but  four  grand  divisions  —  the  Asiatic,  the  Cau- 
I   casian,  the  Ethiopian,  and  the  Indian.     The  whole  surface 
I  of  Europe,  with  some  inconsiderable  exceptions,  is  occupied 
I  by  the  Caucasian  race,  —  by  the  descendants  of  the  energetic 
and  independent  tribes,  which,  from  the  shores  of  the  Cas- 
pian, have,  in  different  eras,  spread  themselves  over  Ger- 
many  and   western   Europe,    and    laid   the   foundations    of 
nearly  all  the  civilization   the  world  contains.     From   this 
Indo-Germanic    or    Caucasian    race  we    are    ourselves    de- 
scended ;  and  we  are  doing  for  the  New  World  what  they 


S32  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

did  for  the  Old,  —  spreading  ourselves  over  and  subduing 
it,  not,  indeed,  by  arms,  but  by  the  arts  of  peace.  In 
whatever  portion  of  Europe  emigration  to  the  United  States 
takes  its  rise,  it  brings  with  it  homogeneous  currents.  The 
same  blood  fills  the  veins  of  all.  If  shades  of  variety  exist 
in  the  intellectual  and  physical  characteristics  of  the  mul- 
titudes who  come  among  us,  it  is  to  be  traced  to  the  influ- 
ences which  diversities  of  soil,  climate,  and  government 
have  exerted  upon  them  in  the  different  sections  of  Europe 
where  their  lot  has  been  cast.  In  the  great  outlines  of 
their  physiognomy,  animal  and  moral,  they  are  identical ; 
and  they  are  distinguishable  from  all  other  races  by  pecu- 
liarities not  to  be  mistaken. 

I  believe  it  to  be  in  the  order  of  Providence,  that  the 
continent  of  North  America,  with  the  exception,  perhaps, 
of  some  inconsiderable  districts,  is  ultimately  to  be  peopled 
by  the  same  race  which  has  overspread  Europe,  and  made 
it  what  it  is  in  science,  in  art,  in  civilization,  and  in  morals. 
We  may,  by  a  misapplication  of  the  means  at  our  command, 
thwart  for  a  season  the  divine  purpose ;  we  may  postpone 
the  consummation  of  the  end  we  have  to  accomplish;  but 
the  deeply-seated  causes  which  are  at  work  will  ultimately 
triumph  over  all  obstacles.  Years,  possibly  centuries,  (and 
what  are  centuries  in  the  history  of  nations  and  empires  1) 
I  say  possibly  centuries  may  be  necessary  to  complete 
this  process;  but  it  must  in  the  end  be  completed.  I 
believe  it  may  be  satisfactorily  shown  that  the  free  black 
population  in  the  Northern  States  does  not  increase  by  its 
own  inherent  force.  I  doubt  whether  it  is  fully  reproduced. 
In  four  of  the  New- England  States  —  Vermont,  New_ 
Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut  —  the  blacl 
population,  from  1820  to  1840,  materially  decreased.  Ii 
New  York,  Massachusetts,  and  Maine,  there  was  an  increas 
during  the  same  period ;  but  this  was  doubtless  due  to  tl 
immigration  of  manumitted  blacks  from  the  South,  findin| 
their  way  to  the  principal  commercial  States.    Without  thes 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       SSS 

accessions,  the  result  in  these  States  would  probably  have 
been  the  same  as  in  the  four  New-England  States  referred  to. 
Under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  it  is,  and  must  con- 
tinue to    be,    an    inferior   caste    in    the    north.     It    counts 
nothing   in    the    estimate,  physical    or    intellectual,    of  the 
strength  of  the  body  politic.     Even  where   the   forms   of 
its   admission   to   the   privileges  of  freemen   are   complete, 
it  is  an  excluded  class.     Let  the  liberal  and  the  humane  do 
what  they  may,  they  cannot  change  the  unalterable  law  of 
its   destiny.     Public   opinion  at  the  North  — call  it  preju- 
dice, if  you  will  —  presents  an   insuperable  barrier  against 
its  elevation  in  the  social  scale.     My  own  State  has  recently^ 
Ay  a  majority  of  about  one  hundred  and    thirty  thousandX 
/  votes  in  two  hundred  thousand,  refused  to  place  blacks  on  J 
\the  same  footing  as  whites  in  the  exercise  of  the  electiv^ 
franchise.     Illinois   and   Connecticut  have,  I  believe,  done 
the  same  thing  by  decided  votes.     A  class  thus  degraded 
will  not  multiply.     This  is  the  first  stage  of  retrogradation. 
The  second  almost  certainly  follows.     It  will  not  be  repro- 
duced ;    and  in  a  few  generations  the  process  of  extinction 
is  performed.     Nor  is  it  the  work  of  inhumanity  or  wrong. 
It  is  the  slow  but  certain  process  of  nature,  working  out 
her  ends  by  laws  so  steady,  and  yet  so  silent,  that  their 
operation  is  only  seen  in  their  results.     I  am  not  sure  that 
this  fact  is  so  supported  by  statistical  data  that  it  can  be 
considered  settled  beyond  doubt.     If  it  were,  it  might  solve 
a  great  problem   in   population   in   the  United  States,  —  a 
problem  full  of  consequence  and  of  instruction  for  our  guid 
ance, — that  manumitted  blacks,  as  a  class,  do  not  multiply 
and  perhaps  are  not  reproduced. 

Is  it  the  part  of  wisdom  or  humanity  to  promote  the  ex 
tension  or  increase  of  a  race,  which  has  its  destiny  written 
in  characters  not  to  be  mistaken  or  effaced,  — an  extension 
adding  nothing  to  the  public  prosperity  or  strength,  and 
enlarging  the  basis  of  human  degradation  and  sufferhig'? 
What  is  the  true  policy  of  the  country,  looking  to  its 


334  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

rapid  growth  and  to  the  steady  extension  of  our  people  over 
the  unoccupied  portions  of  this  continent]  Sir,  there  is 
grave  cause  for  reflection  in  the  unexampled  increase  of  our 
population  by  its  inherent  force,  and  still  more  in  the  vast 
accessions  annually  made  to  our  numbers  by  immigration. 
The  public  order  and  prosperity  depend  in  some  degree  i 
giving  to  these  accessions,  foreign  and  domestic,  a  un 
form  and  homoofeneous  character.  We  could  not  dive 
the  current  of  immigration  if  we  were  disposed  to  d 
what  every  dictate  of  humanity  repels  and  condemns.  It 
is  in  the  vast  and  fertile  spaces  of  the  West  that  our 
own  descendants,  as  well  as  the  oppressed  and  needy  mul- 
titudes of  the  Old  World,  must  find  the  food  they  require, 
and  the  rewards  for  labor^  which  are  necessary  to  give  them 
the  spirit  and  the  independence  of  freemen.  I  hold  it  to  be 
our  sacred  duty  to  consecrate  these  spaces  to  the  multipli- 
cation of  the  white  race.  Our  part  is  to  see,  also,  as  far 
as  in  us  lies,  that  this  new  material  is  made  to  conform 
to  the  political  organization  of  which  it  is  to  become  an 
integral  part.  I  have  always  believed  this  object  would  be 
best  accomplished  by  a  liberal  policy.  The  Federal  gov- 
ernments can  do  nothing  in  this  respect.  The  State  gov- 
ernments must  do  all,  —  rather  perhaps  by  acting  upon 
future  generations  than  the  present, — by  establishing  schools, 
by  the  removal  of  restrictions  upon  the  application  of  labor 
and  capital,  and  by  emancipating  industry,  under  all  its 
forms,  from  the  shackles  of  privilege  and  monopoly 

If  we  were  to  look  to  the  rapid  increase  of  our  own  pop- 
ulation alone,  without  reference  to  external  accessions,  — 
accessions  annually  increasing  and  with  a  constantly  accel- 
erated force,  —  I  should  hold  it  to  be  our  duty  to  promote, 
by  all  just  and  constitutional  means,  the  multiplication  of 
the  white  race,  and  to  discourage,  as  far  as  we  properly 
^can,  the  multiplication  of  every  other.  Reason  and  human- 
ity, acting  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution,  will  define 
the  mode  and  extent  of  the  agency  we  may  exert  over  our 


i 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       S85 

destinies  in  this  respect.  With  regard  to  the  policy  of 
peopling  this  continent  by  the  highest  race  in  the  order  of 
intellectual  and  physical  endowment,  there  can  be  no  dif- 
ference of^  opinion.  No  man  can  hesitate  to  say  whether 
the  condition  of  this  continent,  in  all  that  concerns  its 
government,  morals,  civilization,  prosperity,  strength  and 
productiveness,  would  be  most  likely  to  be  promoted  by 
peopling  it  with  the  race  from  which  we  are  sprung,  or  with 
the  descendants  of  the  Ethiop  and  the  CafFre.  There  may  , 
be  portions  of  the  Southern  States  in  which  the  climate  and 
objects  of  cultivation  require  the  labor  of  blacks.  I  pass 
by  all  considerations  of  this  character  for  an  obvious  reason.  ,, 
If  there  are  portions  of  the  Union,  which  can  only  be  cul-  ^ 
tivated  by  the  African  race,  they  are  embraced  within  the 
territorial  boundaries  of  organized  States,  over  whose  domes- 
tic condition  and  relations  the  Federal  government  has  no 
control.  The  question  concerns  only  them,  and  I  forbear  to 
touch  it.  But  conceding  the  necessity  of  slave  labor  there,  \ 
the  concession  furnishes  no  argument  in  favor  of  permitting 
slavery  to  be  extended  to  territories  in  which  no  such  neces- 
sity exists. 

The  character  of  the  population,  by  which  this  continent 
is  to  be.,  occupied,  is  a  subject  of  vital  importance  to  every 
section  of  the  Union.  (^  The  strength  of  the  whole  is  con- 
cerned, and  with  its  strength  its  security  fron^  external  ag- 
gression and  intestine  disorder  and  violence.  )The  nearek 
the  great  body  of  our  people  —  those  especially  who  till\ 
the  earth — approach  the  same  standard  in  intelligence  and 
political  importance,  the  more  likely  we  shall  be  to  main- 
.  tain  internal  tranquillity  in  peace,  and  bring  to  the  common/ 
\upport  in  war  the  united  strength  of  all.  A, degraded 
class  is  always»„and  must  bfe,._byjforce  of  immutable  laws^ 
an  element  of  insecurity  and  weakness.  I  will  not  say 
that  the  North  is  as  much  interested  in  this  question  as  the 
South.  But  we  have  a  very  deep  interest  in  it.  Manu- 
mitted slaves  come  to  us  in  considerable    numbers.     They 


SS6  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

will  continue  to  do  so  in  spite  of  any  discouragements  we 
may  oppose,  and  without  the  aid  of  compulsory  legislation 
on  the  part  of  the  States  in  which  they  are  manumitted. 
All  such  additions  to  our  numbers  are  in  the  highest  degree 
Undesirable.  They  add  nothing  to  our  strength,  moral  or 
/physical ;  and,  as  we  fill  up,  their  tendency  is  to  exclude 
I  whites  to  the  extent  that  they  contribute  to  supply  the  de- 

j  ■  mand  for  labor.     If  the  fifty  thousand  free  blacks  in  New 

'  York  were  to  be  withdrawn,  their  places  would  be  filled  by 
an  equal  supply  of  white  laborers.  Our  strength  and  our 
;  prosperity  would  be  proportionably  increased  by  substituting 
white  citizens  for  a  class  laboring  under  civil  disqualifica- 
^tions,  and  excluded,  by  the  force  of  opinion,  from  all  share 
in  the  concerns  of  government.  J^^ejjesire  and  need  inde- 
pendent, not  dependent  classes.     We  have,  then,  a  deep  in- 

"^terest  in  this  question,  first  as  a  member  of  the  common 
Union,  and  next  as  a  community  in  some  respects  indepen- 
dent and  sovereign.  In  both  relations  it  concerns  our  per- 
manent welfare,  and  we  can  never  consent  or  contribute  — 
by  any  act,  by  inaction,  by  acquiescence,  express  or  implied  — 

^-  to  the  extension  of  slavery  to  regions  in  which  it  does  not 
now  exist. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  cli- 
mate or  productions  of  Oregon,  which  requires  the  labor 
of  blacks.  If  this  be  so,  slavery,  if  introduced,  would  grad- 
ually give  way  in  the  competition  with  free  labor.  Not- 
withstanding this  inherent  tendency  in  slavery  to  wear  itself 
out  in  districts  to  which  it  is  not  indispensably  necessary,  it 
will  be  profitable  for  a  time  in  new  countries,  where  there 
are  lands  to  be  brought  under  cultivation,  and  where  there 
is  an  urgent  demand  for  labor.  But  for  a  temporary  pur- 
pose, —  with  the  assurance  that  it  must  eventually  be  eradi- 
cated,—  would  it  not  be  unjust  and  unwise,  considering  the 
question  in  its  political  bearing  alone,  to  decline  to  exclude 
it,  and  to  make  the  prohibition  absolute  ] 

Gentlemen  have  said  this  is  not  a  practical  question,  — 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.       SS7 

that  slaves  will  never  be  taken  to  Oregon.     With  all  def- 
erence to  their  opinions,  I  differ  with  them  totally.   J^be-  ^     , 

JieYiU-if  permitted^  slaves  would  be  carried  there,  and  that  V;- 
slavery  would  continue  at  least  as  long  as  in  Maryland  or      a 
Virginia.     The  Pacific  coast  is  totally  different  in  tempera-     ^^ 
ture  from  the  Atlantic.     It  is  far  milder.     Lines  of  equal 
temperature  —  isothermal  lines,  as  they  are  technically  de- 

,  nominated  —  traverse  the  surface  of  earth  in  curves  of 
varied  eccentricity  in  reference  to  the  parallels  of  latitude. 
These  curves  are  nowhere,  perhaps,  greater  than  on  this  con- 
tinent. In  the  latitude  of  Nova  Scotia,  which  is  bound 
for  nearly  half  the  year  in  fetters  of  ice,  snow  on  the  Pa- 
cific does  not  lie  more  than  three  or  four  weeks.  In  the 
valley  of  the  Wilhamette,  above  the  4<5th  degree  of  north 
latitude,  —  the  parallel  of  Montreal,  —  grass  grows  the 
whole  winter,  and  cattle  are  rarely  if  ever  housed.  Green 
pease  are  eaten  at  Oregon  city,  in  the  same  parallel,  at 
Christmas.  Where  is  the  corresponding  climate  to  be  found 
on  this  side  of  the  continent  ]  Where  we  sit  —  near  the 
89th]  No,  sir,  far  to  the  south  of  us.  The  latitude  of 
Georgia  gives  on  the  Pacific  a  tropical  climate. 

When  I  say  this  is  a  practical  question,  I  do  not  rely  on 
reasoning  alone.  The  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  laws^ 
of  Oregon  was  adopted  for  the  express  purpose  of  exclud- 
ing slaves.  A  few  had  been  brought  in;  further  impor- 
tations were  expected ;  and  it  was  with  a  view  to  put  a  stop  ^, 
to  them  that  the  prohibitory  act  was  passed.  ;"    ,^ 

Shall  we,  then,  refuse  to    ratify  this   prohibition  ]     Are   ..^  ^ 
we  unwilling  to  extend  to  the  inhabitants  of  Oregon  a  priv-T-^^ 
ilege  they  ask  for  themselves  1     Shall  we,  by  our  judgment 
solemnly   pronounced  here,    declare    that    the    territory    of 
Oregon  shall  be  open  to  the  introduction  of  slaves,  unless 

'  the  people,  through  their  legislative  assembly,  reenact  the 
prohibition  1  I  might  go  further,  and  ask,  in  reference  to 
a  proposed  amendment,  whether  we  are    prepared    to  say, 

43 


338  SPEECHES  m  the  senate. 

ag:ainst  the  wishes  of  the  inhabitants,  that  the  introduction 
of  slaves  into  Oregon  shall  not  be  prohibited  % 

Mr.  President,  I  desire  it  not  to  be  understood,  in  put- 
ting these  inquiries,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  leaving  to  the 
inhabitants  of  territories  the  decision  of  a  question  not  only 
^^     affecting  them,  but  of  vital  importance  to  the  prosperity  of 
•^       the    whole    community.     I  have  always  regarded  it  as  one 
'    (    of  the  high  duties  of  the  Federal  government  to  give  direc- 
j   tion  and  shape  to  the  institutions  of   the  inhabitants  of  a 
i    territory  while  preparing   tliemselves  for  admission  into  the 
n  I    Union.     This  temporary  subordination  was  deemed  neces- 
:;    \  sary  for  the  northwest  territory,  even  though  settled  by  the 
^"^     J  unmixed  population  of  the  thirteen  original  States,  trained 
V     I  to  self-government  and  to  the  exercise    of  political    rights 
\_under  institutions   of  the    most    faultless    character.     How 
much  more  necessary  is  such  a  supervision  now,  when  ter- 
ritories are  becoming  annexed  to  the  Union    inhabited    by 
the  most  heterogeneous  races,  and  wholly  unused  to  the  en- 
joyment or  exercise  of  rational  freedom  X 

An  honorable  Senator  from  North  Carolina-^  denomi- 
nated this  submission  of  power  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  ter- 
ritories a  republican  measure,  or  as  in  accordance  with  the 
genius  of  our  republican  institutions.  Sir,  it  was  not  so  con- 
sidered in  former  times  —  in  the  earlier  and  better  days  of 
the  Republic.  Let  me  state  some  historical  facts  touching 
this  question. 

In  1805,  an  act  was  passed  for  the  government  of  the 
territory  of  Orleans.  While  the  bill  was  under  discussion 
in  the  Senate,  certain  amendments  were  offered,  the  effect 
of  which  would  have  been  to  give  the  inhabitants  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Orleans  the  management  of  their  own  domestic 
concerns,  uncontrolled  by  Congress.  The  Journal  of  the 
Senate  does  not  show  by  whom  the  amendments  were  offered ; 
but  on  searching  the  records  of  that  period,  I  find  the 
manuscript  copy  indorsed,  "  Mr.  Tracy's  motion  to  amend 

1  Mr.  BadgeE 


A  TERRITOKIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       339 

bill.'*  I  think  this  may  be  regarded  as  the  original,  to 
which  subsequent  attempts  to  emancipate  the  territories 
from  the  control  of  the  Federal  government,  before  they  have 
the  population  necessary  to  give  them  a  representation  in 
Congress,  may  be  referred.  Whatever  the  doctrine  may  be 
considered  at  the  present  day,  it  derived  little  support  from 
republican  sources  then.  It  was  brought  forward  by  Mr. 
Tracy,  an  able  and  respectable  Federalist  from  Connecticut. 
On  the  division,  which  was  called  on  his  motion  to  strike 
out  for  the  purpose  of  inserting  his  amendments,  it  received 
but  eight  votes,  including  his  own.  They  were  given  by 
Timothy  Pickering  and  John  Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachu- 
setts ;  Uriah  Tracy,  the  mover,  and  James  Hillhouse,  of 
Connecticut;  James  A.  Bayard  and  Stephen  White,  of 
Delaware ;  Simeon  Olcott,  of  New  Hampshire ;  and  James 
Jackson,  of  Georgia.  With  the  exception  of  Mr.  Jackson, 
all  these  gentlemen  were  Federalists,  for  it  was  not  until 
several  years  later  that  Mr.  Adams  acted  with  the  Re- 
publican party.  Some  of  them  were  among  the  brightest 
ornaments  of  the  Federal  party  of  that  day,  both  in  re- 
spect to  talents  and  private  character,  and  all  were  strenu- 
ous opponents  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration.  Against 
these  eight  ayes  were  twenty-four  noes,  given  by  the  great 
body  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  supporters  and  some  of  his  oppo- 
nents. Among  the  former  were  Baldwin  of  Georgia,  Giles 
of  Virginia,  and  Smith  of  Maryland.  The  supporters  of 
the  measure  were,  with  one  exception,  Federalists,  and  op- 
ponents of  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration.  Its  opponents 
were  chiefly  Republicans,  and  supporters  of  his  administra- 
tion. 

At  the  same  session  of  Congress,  memorials  were  pre- 
sented to  both  Houses  from  the  inhabitants  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Orleans,  and  from  the  District  of  Louisiana. 
The  former  prayed  to  be  admitted  immediately  into  the 
Union,  and  insisted  that  they  had  a  right  to  such  admis- 
sion under   the  treaty  of  cession.       The  latter  asked    for 


340  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

a  territorial  government;    the  whole  territory,  or  District 
of  Louisiana,  as   it  was  called,  lying  north  of  the  88d  par- 
allel of  latitude,  having  been  virtually  subjected,  in  respect 
to  the  administration  of  its  legislative,  executive,  and  judi- 
cial powers,  to  the  Governor  and  judges    of  the    Indiana 
^territory.     In    both. ^ cases    the    inhabitants    prayedr~lfoi:^he 
*lA.>f'"privilege  of  inaporting  slaves.     These  memorials  were  re- 
A       ferred7  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  a  committee  of 
which  Mr,  John  Randolph  was  chairman. 

On  the  25th  of  January,  1805,  Mr.  Randolph  made  a 
report,  which  will  be  found  at  page  4*17  of  vol.  SO,  Ameri- 
can State  Papers,  printed  by  Gales  &  Seaton,  concluding 
with  a  resolution,  "  that  provision  ought  to  be  made  by 
law  for  extending  to  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana  the  right 
of  self-government."  This  resolution  was  agreed  to,  on  the 
S8th  of  January,  without  a  division. 

Mr.    Randolph's  report,  while  asserting  that  "  every  in- 
dulgence, not  incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the  Union," 
should    be    extended  to    the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana,   and 
while  declaring  that  the  object  of  the  committee  was  "to 
^     give    to    Louisiana   a   government  of  its  own    choice,    ad- 
}''       ministered  by  officers  of  its  own  appointment,"  maintained 
at  the    same    time,  that,  in  "  recommending    the  extension 
-        jof  this  privilege  to  the    people  of  that    country,    it    [was] 
^Fl^ot  the  intention  of  the  committee  that  it  should  be    un- 
"^    "iaccompanied  by  wise  and  salutary  restrictions.      Among  these 
^Q^^/may  be  numbered  a  prohibition  of   the  importation  of  for- 
'}"    I  eign  slaves,  equally  dictated  by  humanity  and  policy,  [here 
follows  an  enumeration  of  other  restrictions,]  to  which  may 
"S^^    be  added,  (for  further  -security,)  that  such  of  the  laws  as 
^vy  may  be   disapproved  by  Congress,  within    a  limited  time 
^    after  their  passage,  shall  be  of  no  force  and  effect." 

The  report  of  Mr.  Randolph  asserted,  to  the  full  extent, 
the  right  of  Congress  to  provide  for  the  government  of 
the  territories,  to  impose  on  them  such  restrictions  as  were 
demanded  by  the  interests  of  the  Union,  and  to  prohibit  the 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       34,1 

introduction  of  slaves  from  foreign  countries,  as  a  measure 
of  humanity  and  policy. 

Such  was  the  action  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  on 
this  subject,  involving  the  question  of  yielding  to  the  inhab- 
itants of  territories  the  control  of  their  own  domestic  affairs, 
and  exempting  their  legislation  from  the  supervisory  and 
repealing  power  of  Congress.  If  we  regard  it  as  a  party 
measure,  all  the  republican  sanctions  of  that  day  were 
against  it.  And  if  we  consider  it  as  a  political  question,  to 
be  determined,  with  regard  to  its  complexion,  by  a  reference 
to  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  it  is  singular  that  those 
who  were  most  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  republi- 
canism should  have  been  arrayed  against  it. 

Let  me  now  examine  for  a  moment  the  question  immedi- 
ately before  us.  A  motion  is  made  to  strike  out  the  twelfth 
section  of  this  bill.  The  section  provides:  1st.  That  "the 
inhabitants  of  the  said  territory  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  heretofore  granted  and 
secured  to  the  territory  of   Iowa,  and  to  its   inhabitants." 

2d.  That  "  the  existing  laws  now  in  force  in  the  territory 
of  Oregon,  under  the  authority  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment established  by  the  people  thereof,  shall  continue  to  be 
valid  and  operative  therein,  so  far  as  the  same  be  not  incom- 
patible with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  subject,  nevertheless, 
to  be  altered,  modified,  or  repealed  by  the  Governor  and 
Legislative  Assembly  of  the  said  territory  of  Oregon." 

8d.  That  '•  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are  hereby 
extended  over  and  declared  to  be  in  force  in  said  territory, 
so  far  as  the  same  or  any  provision  thereof  may  be  appli- 
cable." 

In  order  to  see  what  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities 
the  people  of  Oregon  are  to  acquire,  we  must  refer  to  the 
act  organizing  the  territory  of  Iowa.  The  twelfth  section 
of  this  act  provides,  "  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  terri- 
tory shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  im- 
munities heretofore  granted  and  secured  to  the  territory  of 
Wisconsin  and  its  inhabitants,"  &c. 


S4f2  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

We  must  next  have  recourse  to  the  act  organizing  the 
territory  of  Wisconsin.  The  twelfth  section  of  this  act 
provides,  "  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  territory  shall  be 
entitled  to,  and  enjoy,  all  and  singular  the  rights,  privileges, 
and  advantages  granted  and  secured  to  the  people  of  the 
territory  of  the  United  States  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio, 
by  the  articles  of  the  compact  contained  in  the  ordinance  for 
the  government  of  the  said  territory,  passed  on  the  13th  day 
of  July,  1787?  and  shall  be  subject  to  all  the  conditions 
and  restrictions  a«d  prohibitions  in  said  articles  of  compact 
imposed  upon  the  people  of  the  said  territory." 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  in  the 
language  of  the  two  sections.  The  twelfth  section  of  the 
act  organizing  the  terdiPjy:  of^Io^^  sec  priv- 

ileges, and  inimunities  secured  to  the  territory  of  Wisconsin 
and  its  inhabitants,  including  the  ordinance  of  1787;  but  it 
does  not  expressly  impose  the  conditions,  restrictions,  and 
prohibitions  contained  in  that.. Qxdinance.  Now,  I  suppose 
the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  northwest  territory  by  the 
ordinance  is  to  be  referred  rather  to  the  class  of  restrictions 
and  prohibitions  than  to  that  of  privileges  and  immunities. 
Under  such  a  construction  of  the  act,  slavery  would  not 
have  been  excluded  from  Iowa  by  the  twelfth  section  of  the 
act  establishing  a  government  for  that  territory,  nor  would 
it  be  excluded  from  Oregon  by  that  portion  of  this  bill 
which  secures  to  the  inhabitants  "  the  rights,  privileges,  and 
immunities  heretofore  granted  and  secured  to  the  territory 
of  Iowa  and  its  inhabitants." 

I  know  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  respect  to  the 
true  construction  of  the  twelfth  section  of  the  act  organ- 
izing a  government  for  the  territory  of  Iowa.  The  Sen- 
ator from  Maryland,^  whose  legal  opinions  are  entitled  to 
great  weight,  is  of  opinion  that  the  slavery  restrictions  con- 
tained in  the  twelfth  section  of  the  act  organizing  a  territo- y\ 
rial  government  for  Wisconsin,  from  which  territory  lowp 

1  Mr.  Johnson.  (\ 


A  TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENT  IN   OREGON.        SifS 

was  taken,  are  embraced  in  the  twelfth  section  of  the  act 
establishing  a  government  for  the  latter.  The  Senators 
from  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  ^  consider  the  conditions, 
prohibitions,  and  restrictions,  imposed  by  the  ordinance  of 
1787}  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  rights,  privileges,  and  ad- 
vantages, secured  on  the  other,  as  distinct,  substantive  prop- 
ositions, of  which  the  latter  only  are  embraced  in  the 
twelfth  section  of  the  last-named  act.  And  althoujjh  I  will 
not  undertake  to  decide  between  them,  I  confess  this  seems 
to  me  the  most  reasonable  construction.  Practically,  this 
question  was  of  no  importance  as  to  Iowa,  as  slavery  was 
excluded  from  that  territory,  which  was  a  part  of  Louisiana, 
by  the  Missouri  compromise. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  next  provision  of  this  section, 
which  I  consider  the  most  important.  It  declares  that  the 
laws  now  existing  in  Oregon  shall  continue  to  be  valid  and 
operative,  &c. 

One  of  these  laws  contains  a  prohibition  of  slavery.  I 
will  read  it ;  it  is  article  one,  section  four,  of  the  organic 
laws  of  Oregon :  — 

"  There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  said 
territory,  otherwise  than  for  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the 
party  shall  be  duly  convicted." 

This  prohibition  is  adopted  by  the  section  I  am  consider- 
ing ;  and  the  exclusion  of  slavery  will,  for  the  time,  be  as 
complete  as  though  it  were  expressly  prohibited  by  an  adop- 
tion of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  Senator  from  New 
Hampshire,  and  subsequently  withdrawn  by  him.  That 
amendment  subjected  the  territory  of  Oregon  to  the  restric- 
tions and  prohibitions  of  the  ordinance  of  1787-  It  would 
have  been  a  perpetual  exclusion  of  slavery ;  and  in  this  re- 
spect it  differs  from  the  twelfth  section  as  it  stands.  For 
instance :  under  this  section  the  inhabitants  of  Oregon 
might  rescind  or  repeal  the  law  prohibiting  slavery;  this 
act  of  repeal  would  go  into  immediate    effect,   and    slaves 

1  Mr.  Badger  and  Mr.  Berrien. 


I 


34,4,  sj  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

.o    ^  .  . 

.'V    could  be  introduced  into  the  territory.     The  sixth  section, 

^  however,  provides  that  all  laws  passed  by  the  governor  and 
legislative  assembly  shall  be  submitted  to  Congress,  and  if 
'  K  disapproved,  shall  be  void  and  of  no  effect.  If  such_an  act^ 
of  repeal  should  be  passed,  it  would  bring  the  question  again 
^  before.  Congress^fox  Jts  approval  or_  disapproval.  Such  an 
^  V  act  is  certainly  very  unlikely  to  be  passed^by  the  legislative 
authority  of  the  territory.  Still,  the  positive  prohibition 
{''(Contained  in  the  ordinance  of  1787  is  preferable  as  making 
a  final  disposition  of  the  question ;  and  it  is  in  accordance 
with  the  whole  legislation  of  the  country  in  respect  to  terri- 
tories situated  like  this.  I  shall,  therefore,  at  a  proper  time, 
I  unless  some  other  Senator  does  so,  offer  an  amendment  to 
I  that  effect. 

1  regret  exceedingly,  Mr.  President,  to  have  taxed  the 
patience  of  the  Senate  so  long ;  but  I  believed  I  was  per- 
forming a  duty  to  high  principles,  and  to  the  State  I  have, 
in  part,  the  honor  to  represent ;  and  no  consideration  could 
induce  me  to  shrink  from  the  performance  of  it. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  desire  to  state  some  positions  which 
I  took  last  winter,  in  discussing  what  was  termed  the  three 
million  bill.  I  thought  then,  and  I  think  still,  that  they 
constitute  the  only  practical  and  reasonable  basis  for  the 
settlement  of  this  question.     They  were  these :  — 

1.  All  external  interference  with  slavery  in  the  States  is  a 
violation  of  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and  dan- 
gerous to  the  harmony  and  perpetuity  of  the  Federal  Union. 

2,  If  territory  is  acquired  by  the  United  States,  it  should, 
in  respect  to  slavery,  be  received  as  it  is  found.  If  slavery 
exists  therein  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition,  it  should  not  be 
the  subject  of  legislation  by  Congress.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  slavery  does  not  exist  therein  at  the  time  of  the  acquisi- 
tion, its  introduction  ought  to  be  prohibited  while  the  terri- 
tory continues  to  be  governed  as  such. 

S.  All  legislation  by  Congress,  in  respect  to  slavery  in 
the  territory  belonging  to   the   United   States,  ceases  to  be 


A  TERRITORIAL   GOVERNMENT  IN  OREGON.       S4f5 

operative  when  the  inhabitants  are  permitted  to  form  a  state 
government ;  and  the  admission  of  a  state  into  the  Union 
carries  with  it,  by  force  of  the  sovereignty  such  admission 
confers,  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  whole  question  of  slavery 
at  its  discretion,  without  external  interference. 

These  positions  were  in  substantial  accordance,  as  I  sup- 
posed, with  the  declared  opinions  of  the  legislature  of  New 
York ;  and  they  have  been  recently  reaffirmed,  so  far  as  the 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  territory  in  which  it  does  not 
now  exist  is  concerned. 

I  believe  this  to  be  the  only  just,  equal,  and  reasonable 
basis  on  which  this  question  can  be  amicably  settled.  Such 
a  result  may  be  hopeless.  Extreme  views  on  both  sides 
may  defeat  all  adjustment  of  it  on  friendly  terms.  If  so,  I 
shall  have  the  consolation  of  reflecting,  that,  while  my  own 
opinions  lie  between  those  extremes,  while  they  have  been 
advanced,  as  I  trust,  in  language  no  one  can  deem  offensive, 
they  have  been  maintained  with  a  steadiness  which  ought 
always  to  accompany  settled  convictions  of  right  and  duty. 

Mr.  President,  I  conclude  by  saying  for  New  York,  as  I 
think  I  am  authorized  to  say  by  her  legislative  resolutions, 
that,  while  she  will  adhere  steadfastly  to  all  the  compromises 
of  the  Constitution,  and  while  she  will  resist  all  interference 
with  slavery  in  the  States  as  unauthorized  and  disorganizing, 
she  will  never  consent  to  its  extension  to  territory  in  which 
it  does  not  now  exist,  and  especially  where  it  is  now  pro- 
hibited. On  the  contrary,  she  will,  in  every  constitutional 
mode,  oppose  all  such  extension,  as  of  evil  tendency  in 
government,  wrong  in  itself,  and  repugnant  to  the  humanity 
and  civilization  of  the  age. 


GOVERNMENTS   IN   THE  TERRITORIES. 

The  following  speech  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Dix  on  the  26th  July, 
1848.  The  bill  under  discussion  embraced  the  whole  subject  of  organ- 
izing governments  for  the  territories  acquired  from  Mexico ;  but  the 
only  material  point  of  disagreement  in  the  Senate  was  the  question 
of  permitting  slavery  to  be  established  in  those  territories.  The  South- 
ern Senators  insisted  that  citizens  of  the  United  States  had  the  right, 
under  the  Constitution,  to  carry  into  those  territories  whatever  was 
recognized  as  property  in  the  States  from  which  they  emigrated.  The 
free  States  denied  this  doctrine,  and  insisted  that,  slavery  having  been 
aboUshed  in  Mexico,  it  could  only  be  restored  by  positive  enactment. 
But  to  remove  all  doubt  on  this  point,  it  was  contended  that  the  acts 
organizing  governments  in  these  territories  should  contain  an  absolute 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  order  to  save  the  government  from  the  re- 
proach of  reestablishing  it  where  it  had  long  been  abolished  by  the 
fundamental  law. 

Mr.  President  :  It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  I  throw 
myself  on  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  a  second  time  in 
this  discussion.  But  since  I  spoke,  positions  have  been 
taken  in  the  debate,  and  assertions  made,  which  I  cannot 
pass  by  without  comment ;  and  especially  am  I  unwilling  to 
be  silent  when  the  whole  subject  is  presented  to  us  under  a 
new  phase  by  the  report  of  the  committee  of  eight,  and 
brings  up  a  train  of  considerations  having  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  question. 

Before  I  proceed  to  notice,  as  I  shall  very  briefly,  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee,  I  desire  to  say 
something  on  other  topics  which  have  been  introduced  into 
the  discussion. 

The  Northern  States  have  been  repeatedly  charged  in  this 
debate,  and  on  many  previous  occasions,  with  aggression, 
and  violations  of  the  constitutional  compact,  in  their  action  on 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  ShJ 

the  subject  of  slavery.  With  regard  to  the  surrender  of  fu- 
gitive slaves  —  the  case  most  frequently  cited  —  it  is  possible 
that  there  may  have  been  some  action,  or  inaction,  in  par- 
ticular States,  not  in  strict  accordance  with  the  good  faith 
they  ought  to  observe  in  this  respect.  I  know  not  how 
this  is;  but  there  is  an  effective  power  to  legislate  on 
this  subject  in  Congress  ;  and  I  am  sure  there  will  be  no 
want  of  cooperation  on  our  part,  in  carrying  out  the  require- 
ments of  the  Constitution,  by  providing  all  reasonable  means 
for  executing  them. 

The  Senator  from  South  Carolina,^  in  the  remarks  he  ad- 
dressed to  the  Senate  yesterday,  made  repeated  allusions  to 
me  in  connection  with  the  suggestion  of  a  superior  civiliza- 
tion in  the  non-slaveholding  States.  I  have  made  no  such 
suggestion.  I  have  drawn  no  parallel.  I  have  made  no 
distinction,  in  this  respect,  between  the  North  and  the  South. 
And  in  the  case  to  which  he  particularly  referred,  and  in 
which  I  spoke  of  "  spires  pointing  to  the  skies,"  in  language 
perhaps  soniewhat  more  flowery  than  I  am  accustomed  to 
use,  1  expressly  said  that  I  made  no  distinction  between  the 
two  great  sections  of  the  Union. 

But  this  is  a  matter  on  which  I  shall  not  dwell.  I  am 
but  an  individual ;  and  a  misapprehension  which  concerns 
only  myself  is  comparatively  of  little  importance.  But  when 
the  Senator,  turning  from  me,  assails  the  State  I  have  the 
honor  to  represent,  when  the  misconception  does  injustice  to 
those  who  have  given  me  their  confidence,  he  wounds  me  in 
a  more  tender  point,  and  I  cannot  pass  his  remarks  by  with- 
out a  more  extended  notice. 

Mr.  President,  I  endeavored  to  get  the  floor  yesterday 
when  the  Senator  took  his  seat,  and  I  made  repeated  at- 
tempts afterwards,  in  all  of  which  I  was  unsuccessful.  I 
wished  to  notice,  at  the  moment  and  on  the  spot,  the  imputa- 
tions which  he  had  cast  on  the  State  of  New  York,  in  lan- 
guage I  regretted  to  hear  from   any  Senator  on  this  floor. 

1  Mr.  Butler. 


348  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE.  ♦ 

He  said  a  requisition  had  been  made,  some  years  ago,  on  the 
governor  of  the  State  by  the  executive  of  Virginia,  for  the 
surrender  of  persons  convicted  of  stealing  a  slave  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  latter  State ;  that  the  governor  had  re- 
fused to  surrender  them,  and  that  this  refusal  had  been  sus- 
tained by  both  branches  of  the  legislature ;  and  on  this  state- 
ment he  charged  New  York  with  a  want  of  "  common  hon- 
esty." Sir,  these  are  harsh  epithets —  epithets  which  should 
not  have  been  applied  to  us  without  a  full  knowledge  of  the 
facts.  The  Senator  labors  under  a  great  misapprehension. 
The  responsibility,  which  he  charged  on  the  State,  rests  upon 
the  governor  alone.     The  facts  are  these  : 

In  184^1  a  requisition  was  made  by  the  executive  of  Vir-  J 
ginia  on  the  governor  of  New  York,  for  three  persons, 
charged  with  stealing  a  slave  in  the  former  State.  The 
governor  refused  to  surrender  them,  for  the  reason  assigned 
in  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted  by  both 
branches  of  the   legislature  of  New  York  early  in  1842  :  — 

"  Whereas  the  governor  of  the  State  has  refused  to  deliver  up,  on 
the  demand  of  the  executive  authority  of  Virginia,  Peter  Johnson, 
Edward  Smith,  and  Isaac  Gansey,  alleged  fugitives  from  justice, 
charged  with  the  crime  of  theft,  viz :  stealing  a  slave  within  the  juris- 
diction and  against  the  laws  of  Virginia :  and  whereas  the  governor . 
has  assigned,  as  the  reason  for  such  refusal,  that  the  stealing  of  a  slave 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  and  against  the  laws  of  Virginia,  is  not  a 
felony  or  other  crime  within  the  meaning  of  the  second  section  of  the 
fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States : 

"  Resolved,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  legislature,  stealing  a  slave 
within  the  jurisdiction  and  against  the  laws  of  Virginia,  is  a  crime 
within  the  meaning  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

'•^Resolved,  That  the  governor  be  requested  to  transmit  the  fore- 
going preamble  and  resolution  to  the  executive  department  of  Vir- 
ginia." 

These  resolutions,  as  I  have  said,  passed  both  branches  ofJ 
the  legislature.     I  am  unable  to   state  the  vote  ;  but  I  wi 
then  a  member  of  the  assembly,   and   I   remember  that  i| 
passed  that  body  by  a  very  decided  majority. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE   TERRITORIES.  349 

Thus  it  seems  that  the  legislature  of  New  York,  in  both 
its  branches,  representing  the  people  of  the  State  in  a  double 
capacity,  —  for  the  Senate  was  at  that  time  the  High  Court 
for  the  Correction  of  Errors,  the  highest  judicial  tribunal 
in  the  State,  —  disclaimed  and  condemned  the  act  of  the 
governor,  and  left  the  responsibility  to  rest  on  him  alone. 
Beyond  this  it  could  not  go.  The  act  to  be  performed  was 
executive,  and  the  legislature  had  no  control  over  him  to 
compel  the  performance. 

But  the  Senator  did  not  stop  here.  His  speech  was  re- 
plete with  reproachful  allusions  to  New  York,  too  indefinite 
to  be  met  with  a  distinct  reply ;  and  he  concluded  by  saying 
that  he  expected  nothing  good  from  her.  Sir,  there  have 
been  periods,  in  the  history  of  the  country,  when  she  was 
neither  inactive  nor  inefficient  in  her  efforts  for  the  public 
good.  In  1837,  when  the  whole  banking  system  throughout 
the  Union  exploded,  —  when  the  President  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  was  putting  forth  manifestoes  and  employing 
the  whole  strength  of  that  institution  to  continue  the  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payments,  —  and  when,  I  believe  I  may  say, 
most  other  portions  of  the  Union  were  disposed  to  yield,  — 
New  York  stood  almost  alone  in  opposing  it.  She  com- 
pelled her  own  banks  to  resume  the  discharge  of  their  obli- 
gations under  the  penalty  of  a  forfeiture  of  their  charters ; 
she  became  the  centre  of  all  that  was  sound  in  commerce  and 
finance ;  and  through  the  influence  and  the  power  of  her  ex- 
ample the  country  was  saved  from  years  of  dishonor  and 
pecuniary  embarrassment. 

In  1814,  when  the  whole  Southern  coast  was  at  the  mercy 
of  the  public  enemy,  and  portions  of  it  ravaged  and  laid 
waste,  when  the  administration  here  was  too  weak  to  defend 
the  capital,  and  when  the  very  edifice  in  which  we  sit  was 
given  to  the  flames  by  British  vandalism.  New  York  stood 
again  almost  alone  and  unassisted,  and  carried  on  the  contest 
upon  her  own  frontier  chiefly  with  her  own  means.  She 
raised  money  and  men,  and  contributed  to  sustain  the  honor 


S50  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE 

of  our  arms  in  a  series  of  the  most  desperate  engagements 
ever  fought  on  this  continent. 

Of  her  institutions,  social  and  political,  I  need  say  noth- 
ing, —  the  monuments  she  has  reared  to  science,  and  to  the 
arts,  her  great  artificial  channels  of  intercourse,  and  above 
all,  her  system  of  common-school  education,  embracing  every 
child  that  is  Jborn  or  is  brought  within  her  limits.  These  are 
well  known  to  all  who  hear  me ;  and  they  say  for  her  more 
than  any  words  of  mine  can  speak. 

Less  than  a  year  ago  two  noble-spirited  bands  stood,  side 
by  side,  on  one  of  the  bloodiest  battle-fields  of  Mexico. 
They  were  led  on  by  chivalrous  men,  animated  by  the  single 
resolution  of  upholding  their  country's  honor  and  their  own. 
They  were  the  New  York  and  the  Palmetto  regiments.  The 
blows  they  gave  fell  upon  the  ranks  of  the  enemy  with  equal 
force ;  those  they  received  were  sustained  with  equal  firm- 
ness. More  than  a  third  of  these  gallant  combatants  fell 
together.  The  grass,  which  has  grown  up  rich  and  rank 
upon  that  battle-field,  can  tell  where  their  blood  was  poured 
out  in  common  streams.  The  noble  leader  of  the  Palmetto 
regiment  was  among  the  slain,^  —  borne  from  the  field  of 
carnage,  perhaps,  by  the  united  hands  of  those  whom  he  led, 
and  those  who,  though  coming  from  a  distant  part  of  the 
Union,  fought  by  his  side  with  the  same  devotion  as  his  own 
followers.  Sir,  there  should  be  something  in  these  sacred 
memories  to  disarm  reproach  —  at  least  of  its  injustice. 
Let  me  commend  them  to  the  calm  reflection  of  the  Senator 
from  South  Carolina,  who  has  so  deep  an  interest  in  the  glory 
and  the  grief  of  that  battle-field.  He  is  neither  ungenerous 
nor  unjust.  Let  me  ask  him  to  think  of  these  things,  and 
say  whether  some  good  may  not  come  from  New  York. 

But  I  pass  to  a  charge  more  immediately  connected  with 
the  subject  under  discussion  —  the  application  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  ordinance  of  17^7  to  the  territories  of  the  United 

1  Colonel  Butler  here  alluded  to  was  the  brother  of  the  Senator  to  whom  Mr.   , 
Dix  was  replying.  | 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  $51 

States.  This  charge  concerns  the  whole  North ;  and  I  am 
ready  to  meet  it. 

In  1846  and  1847,  most  of  the  non-slaveholding  States, 
on  high  considerations  of  moral  and  political  principle,  de- 
clared, that  no  new  territory  ought  to  be  acquired  without  a 
fundamental  provision  excluding  slavery.  These  declarations 
had  an  express  and  an  exclusive  reference  to  acquisitions 
from  Mexico,  where  slavery  had  long  been  abolished,  both 
by  executive  and  constitutional  acts.  They  amounted  prac- 
tically to  declarations  against  the  extension  of  slavery  to  free 
territory,  and  no  more.  New  York  did  not  take  the  lead  in 
these  declarations.  The  first  legislative  resolutions  received 
here  came  from  the  State  of  Vermont,  and  were  presented  to 
this  body  on  the  £8th  January,  1847.  The  New  York  reso- 
lutions were  presented  on  the  6th  February  ensuing ;  those 
of  Pennsylvania  on  the  8th;  of  Rhode  Island,  on  the  10th; 
of  Ohio,  on  the  16th;  of  New  Hampshire  and  New  Jersey, 
on  the  19th;  of  Michigan,  on  the  1st  of  March;  and  of 
Massachusetts,  on  the  8d,  —  the  last  day  of  the  session. 
Connecticut  passed  resolutions  on  the  S4th  of  June;  but 
Congress  had  then  adjourned,  and  they  were  presented  at 
the  commencement  of  the  subsequent  session.  Delaware,  a 
slaveholding  State,  followed,  and  requested  her  Senators  to 
vote  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  territory  thereafter 
to  be  acquired.  Here  are  eleven  States  which  have  passed 
resolutions  on  this  question.  It  was  a  spontaneous  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  non-slaveholding  States,  neither 
led  on  by  New  York  nor  set  on  foot  by  her,  but  arising  out 
of  indications  in  Congress  of  an  intention  to  acquire  terri- 
tory from  Mexico,  and  leave  it  open  to  the  introduction  of 
slaves ;  and  every  one  knows  they  will  be  carried  wherever 
they  are  permitted. 

On  looking  at  the  dates  of  these  several  resolutions,  I  find 
New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Rhode  Island,  and  Pennsylva- 
nia preceded  New  York,  in  the  order  in  which  I  name  them, 
in   acting  on    this    subject  in   their  respective  legislatures. 


S52  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

Three  of  the  small  New-England  States,  which  the  Senator 
from  Virginia,  who  spoke  first  on  this  question,^  would  have 
us  helieve  New  York  was  seeking  to  seduce,  and  in  the  end 
to  swallow  up,  were  actually  the  pioneers  in  this  movement. 
Pennsylvania  was  next  in  the  field.  New  York  did  but  fol- 
low and  sustain  them  in  their  declarations  against  the  exten- 
sion of  slavery  to  territory  in  which  it  does  not  exist. 

Such  is  the  history  of  this  movement,  commencing  as 
far  back  as  July,  1846,  almost  coeval  with  the  war  with 
Mexico,  and  originating  in  a  charge  of  intending  to  conquer 
territory  for  the  purpose  of  planting  slavery  upon  it.  And 
these  public  declarations  may  perhaps  be  properly  regarded 
in  a  twofold  light,  so  far  as  motive,  on  the  part  of  the  leg- 
islatures, is  concerned  :  first,  to  exonerate  themselves  from 
the  imputation  ;  and,  second,  to  array  their  influence  against 
such  a  design,  if  it  should  be  entertained  in  any  quarter. 

Let  me  now  take  a  somewhat  larger  view  of  this  whole 
subject  of  Northern  aggression.  It  was  said,  I  think, 
by  a  Southern  member  of  the  Federal  convention,  though 
it  may  have  been  in  Congress  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  that  no  slaveholding  State  would  thereafter  be 
admitted  into  the  Union ;  that  there  were  eight  States  in- 
terested in  abolishing  slavery,  and  five  interested  in  main- 
taining it,  and  that  they  would  act  accordingly  in  voting 
for  the  admission  of  new  States.  This  prophecy  had  no 
foundation  in  truth.  The  members  of  Congress  from  the 
North  have  voted  as  freely  and  readily  for  the  admission 
of  slaveholding  as  for  non-slaveholding  States  into  the  Union. 
If  we  look  around  us  upon  this  floor,  we  shall  find  all  prog- 
nostics founded  upon  the  supposed  prejudices  or  the  unkind 
feeling  of  the  North  utterly  falsified.  Sir,  there  are  ten 
Senators  here  representing  slaveholding  States  formed  from 
territory  acquired  since  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  How 
many  are  there  representing  free  States  formed  from  new 
territory  1     Not  a  single  one  !     But  for  a  domestic  difficulty 

1  Mr.  Mason. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  S5S 

in  Iowa,  it  is  true,  that  State  would  have  been  represented 
here,  and  we  should  then  have  had  two  Senators  from  free 
States  against  ten  from  slaveholding  States  formed  out  of 
territory  purchased  by  the  common  treasure  and  maintained 
by   the   common    blood    of  the    whole    Union.      We   have 
given  up  the  territory  constituting  these  States  to  the  South. 
We  have  reserved  no  portion  of  them  to  Northern  emigra- 
tion, excepting  the  misshapen  strip  of  Texas  north  of  86° 
8(y,  which,  so  far  as  extent  and  productive  value  are  con- 
cerned, is,  for  all  purposes  of  a  fair  and  equitable  division, 
the  merest  mockery.     The  area  of  these  five  States  is  equal 
to  two  thirds  of  the  entire  area  of  the  thirteen  original  States. 
This  the  North  has  done  for  the  maintenance  of  slavery,  — 
sir,  I  might  say  for  the  extension  of  slavery  and  the  multi- 
plication of  slaves ;    for  this  vast  surface  was  almost  unin- 
habited when  it  was  acquired,  and  it  is  now  filled  up  with 
a  slaveholding  population.     There    are    more  than    half  a 
million  of  slaves  in  these  ^ve  States,  not  one  tenth  part  of 
whom  would  have  been  there,  if  the  right  to  exclude  them 
had  been  insisted  on.     But  we  have  stood  on  the  ground; 
of  non-interference.      Where   we    have    found    slavery,   we 
have  left  it.      We  have  not  countenanced  any  measure  of 
abolition  or  emancipation.     On  the  contrary,  we  have  unir. 
formly  opposed  all  interference  with  slavery  in  the  States. 
With  the   single   exception   of  the   Louisiana  territory,  we 
have  left  it  to  spread  itself  over  the  areas  on  which  it  ex- 
isted only  nominally.     We  have  almost  gone,  at  the  North, 
to  the  extreme  of   mobbing  abolitionism,  when  it   contem-       / 
plated  interference  with  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  States,      / 
and  of  instituting  a  scrutiny  of  the  public  mails  to  arrest     / 
the  circulation  of  incendiary  publications.     And  now,  after    / 
all  this  active  cooperation  in  the  promotion  of  the  objects  / 
and  interests  of  the  slaveholding  States,  how  are  we  met?/ 
By  charges  of  aggression,  of  hostility,  and  of  violating  tlje 
constitutional  compact. 

Sir,  we  stand  firmly  upon  the  compromises  of  the  Consti- 

45 


S54i  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

tution.  We  have  ever  done  so.  We  shall  continue  to  do  so. 
We  have  gone  further.  We  have  opposed  all  interference 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  over 
which  Congress  is  empowered  by  the  Constitution  to  "  ex- 
ercise exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever."  Beyond 
this  we  cannot  go.  I  deny  that  any  compromise  in  framing 
the  Constitution,  or  any  guaranty  arising  under  its  provis- 
ions, extends,  or  was  designed  to  extend,  to  the  regulation 
of  slavery  in  the  territories.  What  were  the  compromises 
of  the  Constitution]  They  were  three:  1.  That  the  small 
States  should  be  equally  represented  in  the  Senate  with  the 
large  States ;  2.  That  the  slave  population  in  the  States 
should  constitute  a  part  of  the  basis  of  representation  in 
Congress ;  8.  That  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the  States 
then  existing  should  not  be  prohibited  prior  to  1808.  These 
were  the  three  great  compromises  on  which  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  may  be  considered  as  havii:ig  turned.  In 
settling  them,  some  reference  was  naturally  had  to  the  dis- 
tribution and  regulation  of  the  powers  vested  in  the  Federal 
government  and  reserved  to  the  States  and  the  people  re- 
spectively. 

Now,  sir,  what  was  the  security  sought  for  by  the  South 
in  the  adoption  of  these  compromises'^  Was  it  that  Con- 
gress should  impose  no  restriction  on  the  extension  of  slavery 
to  the  territories  1  No,  sir.  That  power  I  have  no  doubt 
was  left,  so  far  as  it  was  contemplated  at  all,  to  be  exercised 
by  Congress,  according  to  its  own  views  of  humanity  and 
justice.  I  humbly  think  this  construction  sustained  by  what 
I  said  on  a  former  occasion.  It  is  shown  also  by  the  deed 
of  the  cession  by  North  Carolina  of  western  territory  now 
constituting  the  State  of  Tennessee,  in  which  it  was  provided, 
"  that  no  regulations  made,  or  to  be  made,  by  Congress  shall 
tend  to  emancipate  slaves,"  —  a  prohibition  implying  a  right 
to  regulate,  restrict,  and  exclude  them. 

The  Senator  from  Florida  ^  read  to   the  Senate  yesterday 

1  Mr.  Westcott 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  SS5 

the  faC'simile  of  an  original  paper  found  among  the  man- 
uscripts of  Mr.  Monroe,  and  in  his  handwriting,  by  which 
it  appears,  that  when  the  Missouri  compromise  act,  as  it  is 
called,  was  passed,  he  took  the  opinions  of  the  members  of 
his  Cabinet,  in  writing,  in  respect  to  the  constitutionality 
of  that  act.  The  Senator  from  South  Carohna  ^  was  one 
of  the  Cabinet;  and  as  I  took,  and  endeavored  to  sustain, 
on  a  late  occasion,  the  position  that  Congress  possesses  the 
right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories  of  the  United  States, 
I  am  naturally  desirous  of  fortifying  it  with  all  the  authority 
I  can  command ;  and  I  shall  be  particularly  gratified,  if  it 
shall  be  found  that  the  distinguished  Senator  alluded  to, 
though  now  denying  the  right,  was  then  in  favor  of  it. 
I  will  read  to  the  Senate  all  of  this  paper  which  relates 
to  the  subject :  — 

(From  Mr.  Monroe's  manuscripts.)  —  A  paper  indorsed  "  Interroga- 
tories, Missouri ;  March  4,  1820.     To  the  Heads  of  Departments 
and  Attorney-  General :  " 
Questions  (on  opposite  page)  : 

"  Has  Congress  a  right,  under  the  powers  vested  in  it  by  the  Con- 
stitution, to  make  a  regulation  prohibiting  slavery  in  a  Territory  ? 

"  Is  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  which  passed  both  Houses  on  the 
3d  instant,  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  consistent 
with  the  Constitution  ?  " 

With  the  above  is  the  original  draught  of  the  following 
letter,  in  President  Monroe's  handwTiting,  on  half  a  sheet 
of  paper,  but  not  indorsed  or  addressed  to  any  one.  There 
are  interlineations,  but  the  text,  as  left  by  the  writer,  is  as 
follows :  — 

"  Dear  Sir  :  The  question  which  lately  agitated  Congress  and  the 
public  has  been  settled,  as  you  have  seen,  by  the  passage  of  an  act 
for  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  State,  unrestrained,  and  Arkansas 
likewise,  when  it  reaches  maturity,  and  the  establishment  of  the  36° 
30'  north  latitude  as  a  line,  north  of  which  slavery  is  prohibited,  and 
permitted  to  the  south.  I  took  the  opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  Admin- 
istration as  to  the  constitutionality  of  restraining  Territories,  [and  the 
vote  of  every  member  was  unanimous  and  ^]  which  was  explicit  in  favor 

1  Mr.  Calhoun.        ^  The  words  in  Italics  are  erased  in  the  original  draught. 


356  SPEECHES  m  THE   SENATE. 

of  it,  and  as  it  was  that  the  8th  section  of  the  act  was  applicable  to 
Territories  only,  and  not  to  States  when  they  should  be  admitted  into 
the  Union.  On  this  latter  point  I  had  at  first  some  doubt ;  but  the 
opinion  of  others,  whose  opinions  were  entitled  to  weight  with  me, 
supported  by  the  sense  in  which  it  was  viewed  by  all  who  voted  on  the 
subject  in  Congress,  as  will  appear  by  the  Journals,  satisfied  me  re- 
specting it." 

This  letter  has  been  supposed  to  have  been  written  to 
General  Jackson,  though  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  fact. 

Mr.  FooTE.  Were  these  interrogatories  sent?  or  was  it  merely  a 
statement  for  his  own  private  convenience  ? 

It  is  impossible  to  say,  except  so  far  as  the  paper  may 
be  considered  as  indicating  the  use  made  of  them.  I  state 
the  facts  as  they  have  been  related  to  me.  The  paper  was 
found  among  Mr.  Monroe's  manuscripts,  and  is  in  his  hand- 
writing. It  was  read  to  the  Senate  yesterday  by  the  Sena- 
tor from  Florida,^  for  another  purpose,  and  the  evidence  of 
its  authenticity  I  understand  to  be  in  his  possession. 

Mr.  Calhoun.  If  the  Senator  will  give  way,  it  will  be  perhaps  bet- 
ter that  I  make  a  statement  at  once  respecting  this  subject,  as  far  as 
my  recollection  will  serve  me.  During  the  whole  period  of  Mr.  Mon- 
roe's administration,  I  remember  no  occasion  on  which  the  members  of 
his  administration  gave  written  opinions.  I  have  an  impression  — 
though  not  a  very  distinct  one  —  that  on  one  occasion  they  were 
required  to  give  written  opinions  ;  but  for  some  reason,  not  now  recol- 
lected, the  request  was  not  carried  into  effect.  He  was  decidedly 
opposed  to  the  imposition  of  any  restriction  on  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri into  the  Union,  and  I  am  strongly  of  the  impression  that  he  was 
opposed  in  feeling  to  what  was  called  the  Missouri  compromise. 

Mr.  Johnson,  of  Maryland.     Is  this  the  original  letter  ? 

I  understand  it  to  be  a  facsimile  of  the  original.  As 
a  long  period  (nearly  thirty  years)  has  elapsed  since  the  act 
to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  was  passed,  it  is  quite 
natural  that  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  should  have 
forgotten  the  circumstances  attending  the  discussion  of  it 
in  the  Cabinet.  Having  heard,  some  days  ago,  of  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  paper,  and  being  very  desirous  of  ascertain- 
ing the  facts,  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  of 

1  Mr.  Westcott. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  S5^ 

Boston,  a  son  of  the  late  ex-President,  inquiring  of  him  if  his 
father's  diary  contained  anything  on  the  subject.  In  reply  to 
my  inquiry,  I  received  an  extract  from  the  diary  of  the  father, 
certified  by  the  son,  which  I  will  now  read,  and  which  con- 
firms fully  the  statement  contained  in  Mr.  Monroe's  letter : 

Extracts  from  the  Diary  of  John  Quincy  Adams. 

"  March  3,  1820.  —  When  I  came  this  day  to  my  office,  I  found 
there  a  note  requesting  me  to  call  at  one  o'clock  at  the  President's 
House.  It  was  then  one,  and  I  immediately  went  over.  He  expected 
that  the  two  bills,  for  the  admission  of  Maine  and  to  enable  Missouri 
to  make  a  constitution,  would  have  been  brought  to  him  for  his  signa- 
ture ;  and  he  had  summoned  all  the  members  of  the  Administration 
to  ask  their  opinions  in  writing,  to  be  deposited  in  the  Department  of 
State,  upon  two  questions :  1,  Whether  Congress  had  a  constitutional 
right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  a  Territory  ?  and  2,  Whether  the  8th  sec- 
tion of  the  Missouri  bill  (which  interdicts  slavery  forever  in  the  terri- 
tory north  of  36^  latitude)  was  applicable  only  to  the  territorial  state, 
or  would  extend  to  it  after  it  should  become  a  State  ?  As  to  the  first 
question,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  Congress  have  the  power  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories." 

This  is  the  first  extract ;  and  before  I  proceed  to  the 
others,  I  will  state  that,  in  respect  to  the  second  question, 
there  was  a  diversity  of  opinion,  —  Mr.  Adams  contending 
that  a  State  would  be  bound  by  such  a  prohibition  after  its 
admission  into  the  Union,  and  the  other  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  that  it  was  only  operative  during  the  territorial 
term.  In  order  to  secure  unanimity  in  the  answers,  the 
second  question  was  modified,  as  will  appear  by  the  remain- 
ing extracts  which  I  proceed  to  give :  — 

P  "March  5.  —  The  President  sent  me  yesterday  the  two  questions 
in  writing,  upon  which  he  desired  to  have  answers  in  writing,  to  be 
deposited  in  the  Department  of  State.  He  wrote  me  that  it  would  be 
in  time,  if  he  should  have  the  answers  to-morrow.  The  first  question 
is  in  general  terms,  as  it  was  stated  at  the  meeting  on  Friday.  The 
second  was  modified  to  an  inquiry  whether  the  8th  section  of  the  Mis- 
souri bill  is  consistent  with  the  Constitution.  To  this  I  can  without 
hesitation  answ^er  by  a  simple  affirmative,  and  so  after  some  reflection  I 

concluded  to  answer  both 

"  March  6 I  took  to  the  President's  my  answers  to  his  two 


358  SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 

constitutional  questions,  and  he  desired  me  to  have  them  deposited  in 
the  department,  together  with  those  of  the  other  members  of  the  Ad- 
ministration. They  differed  only  as  they  assigned  their  reason  for 
thinking  the  8th  section  of  the  Missouri  bill  consistent  with  the  Con- 
stitution, because  they  considered  it  as  only  applying  to  the  terri- 
torial term ;  and  I  barely  gave  my  opinion,  without  assigning  for  it 
any  explanatory  reason.  The  President  signed  the  Missouri  bill  this 
morning." 

These  extracts  are  certified  to  be 

"  a  true  copy  from  the  original  by  me, 

"  Charles  Francis  Adams." 
Mr.  Calhotjn.     Has  any  search  been  made  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment for  these  written  opinions  ? 

The  State  Department  has  been  examined,  —  how  thor- 
oughly I  do  not  know,  —  but  they  have  not  been  found. 

Mr.  Westcott.  I  made  an  examination,  as  I  stated  yesterday, 
myself,  but  could  find  none.  This  letter  is  in  Mr.  Monroe's  handwrit- 
ing, and  from  its  tenor  is  supposed  to  have  been  intended  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  General  Jackson.  I  understand  that,  upon  examination  of 
General  Jackson's  papers,  a  letter  was  found  from  Mr.  Monroe,  con- 
taining everything  which  is  contained  in  this  draught,  except  that  part 
which  relates  to  the  action  of  the  Cabinet.  The  letter  was  also  dated 
the  same  day.  I  presume,  therefore,  that,  upon  writing  the  letter  to 
General  Jackson,  ultimately,  unless  it  was  intended  for  some  one  else, 
Mr.  Monroe  left  out  that  portion  relating  to  the  action  of  the  Cabinet  in 
relation  to  the  "  Missouri  compromise." 

I  have  examined  the  letter  referred  to,  as  addressed  to 
General  Jackson,  and  find  that  it  was  written  in  1821,  while 
the  paper  containing  the  interrogatories  was  dated  the  4th  of 
March,  1820;  and  the  former  has  only  two  of  the  last  para- 
graphs of  the  letter  before  us ;  all  the  rest  being  different. 

Mr.  Calhoun.  If  any  written  opinion  was  ever  given  by  me,  it 
has  entirely  escaped  my  memory;  and  I  feel  satisfied,  if  ever  given, 
it  was  very  little  more  than  an  assent  or  dissent  to  the  course  adopted 
by  the  Administration.  Mr.  Adams  had  the  advantage  of  keeping  a 
diary,  which  no  doubt  may  be  relied  upon,  as  far  as  he  is  individually 
concerned ;  but  which,  of  course,  is  liable  to  mistakes,  as  far  as  it  rep- 
resents the  views  and  acts  of  others.  In  this  case  there  may  be  some 
explanation,  if  all  the  facts  were  known,  which  would  reconcile  his 
statement  with  my  recollection.     But  of  one   thing  I  feel   perfectly 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE   TERRITORIES.  359 

sure,  that  I  could  never  have  directed  my  attention  and  formed  an 
opinion  on  so  important  a  subject,  as  a  member  of  his  Cabinet,  and  re- 
duced it  to  writing,  for  the  purpose  of  being  preserved,  without  recol- 
lecting it. 

Mr.  Johnson,  of  Maryland,  was  understood  to  say,  that,  on  exam- 
ining the  letter,  he  did  not  think  it  sustained  the  fact  the  Senator 
from  New  York  was  endeavoring  to  prove.  He  observed  that  Mr. 
Monroe  had  first  stated  that  the  opinion  of  the  Administration  was 
unanimous,  and  that  he  had  erased  the  word  unanimous,  and  substi- 
tuted the  word  explicit,  which  had  quite  a  different  meaning. 

Mr.  Calhoun.  I  feel  justified  in  saying,  from  all  the  circumstan- 
ces of  this  case,  including  the  facts  stated  by  the  Senator  from  Mary- 
land, and  the  absence  of  any  written  opinion  on  the  file  of  the  State 
Department,  that,  notwithstanding  the  certificate  from  Mr.  Adams's 
diary,  no  such  opinions  were  given  as  it  states.  There  is  some  mis- 
take about  it,  but  how  it  originated  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  Per- 
haps it  may  be  explained  by  the  vague  impression,  as  I  have  stated, 
on  my  mind,  that  the  opinions  were  called  for,  but  never  formally 
given  in  writing,  at  least  not  beyond  a  mere  assent  or  dissent  as  to  the 
course  ultimately  adopted.  I  know  well  all  about  the  compromise ; 
the  cause  which  led  to  it,  and  the  reason  why,  that  the  Northern  men 
who  voted  against  it  were  universally  sacrificed  for  so  doing.  It  is 
quite  a  mistake,  as  some  suppose,  that  they  were  sacrificed  for  voting 
for  the  comproniise.  The  very  reverse  is  the  case.  The  cause  I  will 
proceed  to  state  :  During  the  session  of  the  compromise,  Mr.  Lowndes 
and  myself  resided  together.  He  was  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  I  was  Secretary  of  War.  We  both  felt  the 
magnitude  of  the  subject.  Missouri,  at  the  preceding  session,  had 
presented  herself  for  admission  as  a  member  of  the  Union.  She  had 
formed  a  constitution  and  government,  in  accordance  with  an  act  of 
Congress.  Her  admission  was  refused  on  the  ground  that  her  con- 
stitution admitted  of  slavery;  and  she  was  remanded  back  to  have 
the  objectionable  provision  expunged.  She  refused  to  comply  with 
the  requisition,  and  at  the  next  session  again  knocked  at  the  door  of 
Congress  for  admission,  with  her  constitution  as  it  originally  stood. 
This  gave  rise  to  one  of  the  most  agitating  discussions  that  ever  oc- 
curred in  Congress.  The  subject  was  one  of  repeated  conversation 
between  Mr.  Lowndes  and  myself.  The  question  was,  what  was  to 
be  done,  and  what  would  be  the  consequence  if  she  was  not  admitted  ? 
Afler  full  reflection,  we  both  agreed  that  Missouri  was  a  State  made 
so  by  a  regular  process  of  law,  and  never  could  be  remanded  back  to 
the  territorial  condition.  Such  being  the  case,  we  also  agreed  that 
the  only  question  was,  whether  she  should  be  a  State  in  or  out  of 
the   Union?  and   it  was   for   Congress  to  decide  which   position  she 


360  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

should  occupy.  Mj  friend  made  one  of  his  able  and  lucid  speeches  on 
the  occasion  ;  but  whether  it  has  been  preserved  or  not,  I  am  not  able 
to  say.  It  carried  conviction  to  the  minds  of  all,  and  in  fact  settled 
the  question.  The  question  was  narrowed  down  to  a  single  point. 
AU  saw  that  if  Missouri  was  not  admitted,  she  would  remain  an  inde- 
pendent state  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi,  and  would  become 
the  nucleus  of  a  new  confederation  of  states  extending  over  the  whole 
of  Louisiana.  None  were  willing  to  contribute  to  such  a  result ;  and 
the  only  question  that  remained  with  the  Northern  members  who  had 
opposed  her  admission  was,  to  devise  some  means  of  escaping  from  the 
awkward  dilemma  in  which  they  found  themselves.  To  back  out  or 
compromise,  were  the  only  alternatives  left ;  and  the  latter  was  eagerly 
seized  to  avoid  the  disgrace  of  the  former,  —  so  eagerly,  that  all  who 
opposed  it  at  the  North  were  considered  traitors  to  that  section  of  the 
Union,  and  sacrificed  for  their  votes. 

Mr.  FoOTE.  The  gentleman  referred  to,  and  from  whose  journal 
an  extract  has  been  read,  as  is  well  known,  has  been  always  regarded 
as  a  most  violent  partisan  of  the  peculiar  views  he  held  in  relation  to 
this  subject.  I  beg  leave  most  respectfully  to  inquire  of  the  honor- 
able Senator  from  New  York,  whether  this  statement  or  extract  read 
has  been  sworn  to  or  not  ? 

The  statement  was,  as  I  have  said,  taken  from  the  diary  of 
Mr.  Adams,  certified,  but  not  sworn  to,  by  his  son,  a  gentle- 
man of  the  highest  respectability. 

I  do  not  intend  to  enter  into  any  discussion  concerning  the 
Missouri  compromise,  or  the  testimony  I  have  presented.  I 
leave  it  to  speak  for  itself,  and  to  others  to  say  how  far  it 
shall  be  considered  to  outweigh  the  recollections  of  the  Sena- 
tor from  South  Carolina.  I  will  only  add,  that  there  is  the 
strongest  possible  coincidence  between  Mr.  Monroe's  letter 
and  Mr.  Adams's  diary  in  all  the  important  facts.  Both 
state  the  questions  to  have  been  "  in  writing  " ;  both  show 
that  they  were  submitted  in  the  shape  in  which  they  were  to 
be  answered,  on  the  4th  of  March,  18S0.  The  identity  of 
the  questions  is  another  striking  coincidence.  The  only 
material  variation  is  that  suggested  by  the  Senator  from 
Maryland.  Mr.  Adams  states,  that  the  opinion  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Cabinet  was  "  unanimous  "  in  favor  of  the  power 
of  Congress    to  prohibit  slavery   in   the    territories    of  the 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  S61 

United  States.  Mr.  Monroe  wrote  "  unanimous  '*  in  the  first 
instance,  and  then  substituted  "explicit,"  —  an  alteration  he 
might  very  naturally  have  made,  on  reflection,  in  writing  to 
a  friend,  in  order  to  avoid  giving  a  clue  to  the  opinions  of 
individual  members  of  his  administration.  The  answers 
were  very  brief,  as  Mr.  Adams  shows ;  but  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  questions  were  drawn,  the  answers,  whether 
affirmative  or  negative,  must  either  have  asserted  or  denied 
the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  territories.  But  all  this  I  am  willing  to  submit  to  the 
candid  judgment  of  others. 

Let  me  now  cite  a  few  of  the  remarks  made  in  the  Fed- 
eral convention  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  slave  represen- 
tation. On  the  12th  of  July,  Mr.  Randolph,  of  Virginia, 
said,  "  That  express  security  ought  to  be  provided  for  includ- 
ing slave§  in  the  ratio  of  representation.  He  lamented  that 
such  a  species  of  property  existed ;  but  as  it  did  exist,  the 
holders  of  it  would  require  this  security.  It  was  perceived 
that  the  design  was  entertained  by  some  of  excluding  slaves 
altogether  ;  the  legislature,  therefore,  ought  not  to  be  left  at 
liberty." 

In  the  convention  of  Virginia,  by  which  the  Constitution 
was  ratified,  Governor  Randolph  entered  into  an  elaborate 
argument  to  show  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  abolish  sla- 
very in  the  States.  It  was  feared  that  under  the  power  of 
prohibiting  the  slave-trade,  or  under  the  power  to  regulate 
commerce,  or  under  some  implied  power,  slavery  within  the 
limits  of  the  States  might  be  interfered  with  by  Congress. 

On  the  13th  of  July,  Mr.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina, 
said :  "  The  security  the  Southern  States  want  is,  that  their 
negroes  may  not  be  taken  from  them,  which  some  gentlemen 
within  or  without  doors  have  a  very  good  mind  to  do." 

This  was  the  tenor  of  the  discussions  in  the  State  conven- 
tions by  which  the  Constitution  was  ratified.  They  looked 
to  security  from  abolition  or  emancipation  by  Congress  within 
their  own  limits.     Extension  of  slavery  beyond  their  limits 

46 


352  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

was  hardly  thought  of ;  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying", 
from  the  tone  of  the  debates,  that,  if  it  had  been  fully  dis- 
cussed, it  would  have  been  to  brand  it  with  general  disap- 
probation. 

On  the  £2d  of  August,  a  very  full  and  interesting  debate 
arose  in  the  Federal  convention  on  the  question  of  prohibiting 
the  importation  of  slaves.  The  only  objects  contended  for 
in  any  quarter  were,  the  right  to  import  them,  and  an  exemp- 
tion of  the  States  from  all  iuterference  with  slavery  within 
their  own  limits  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  government.  It 
was  generally  conceded,  except  by  the  extreme  South,  that 
slavery  would  ultimately  be  abolished.  And  yet  the  slave 
population  has  gone  on  steadily  increasing,  from  600,000  to 
3,000,000  of  souls;  and  now  we  are  engaged  in  a  struggle 
to  enlarge  the  area  of  slavery,  or  to  prevent  its  exclusion 
from  territory  in  which  it  does  not  exist. 

Mr.  Calhoun.  I  must  beg  the  Senator  from  New  York  to  state 
me  more  correctly.  We  are  not  contending  for  the  extension  of  the 
area  of  slavery,  and  if  he  places  us  upon  that  ground,  he  places  us  in 
a  very  false  position.  What  we  do  contend  for  is,  that  the  Southern 
States,  as  members  of  our  Union,  are  entitled  to  equal  rights  and  equal 
dignity,  in  every  respect,  with  the  northern  ;  and  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  Constitution  to  deprive  us  of  this  equality,  in  consequence  of 
being  slaveholders. 

The  Senator  contends  for  the  right  of  carrying  slaves  into 
the  territories.  I  understand  this  to  be  an  extension  of  sla- 
very, and  with  all  deference  to  him,  I  can  call  it  by  no  other 
name. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  we  were  asked  by  the  Sen- 
ator from  Virginia,  whether  any  one  believes  that  State 
would  ever  have  come  into  the  Union,  if  the  right  to  exclude 
slaves  from  the  territories  had  been  insisted  on  ]  I  answer, 
yes ;  and  on  the  strength  of  the  known  oninions  of  her  dele- 
gates in  the  convention. 

Mr.  Madison  would  not  consent  "  to  admit  in  the  Consti- 
tution the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  men."  He 
was  unwilling  to  postpone  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITOKIES.  S68 

twenty  years.  "  So  long  a  term,"  he  added,  "  will  be  more 
dishonorable  to  the  American  character  than  to  say  nothing 
about  it  in  the  Constitution."  His  language  and  his  action 
then,  and  on  all  occasions,  were  in  favor  of  the  restriction  of 
slavery,  and  not  in  favor  of  its  extension.  The  opinion  of 
General  Washington,  the  President  of  the  convention,  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  is  well  known.  I  have  already  referred 
to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Randolph.  Colonel  Mason  was  still 
more  decided  and  explicit.  His  language  may  be  quoted 
now  with  the  more  effect,  when  those  who  have  come  after 
him  differ  with  him  so  widely  in  opinion  :  — 

"  This  infernal  traffic  originated  in  the  avarice  of  British  merchants. 
The  British  government  constantly  checked  the  attempts  of  Virginia 
to  put  a  stop  to  it.  The  present  question  concerns  not  the  importing 
States  alone,  but  the  whole  Union.  The  evil  of  having  slaves  was 
experienced  during  the  late  war.  Had  slaves  been  treated  as  they 
might  have  been  by  the  enemy,  they  would  have  proved  dangerous 
instruments  in  their  hands ;  but  their  folly  dealt  by  the  slaves  as  it  did 

by  the  Tories Maryland  and  Virginia  (he  said)  had  already 

prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves  expressly ;  North  Carolina  had 
done  the  same  in  substance.  All  this  would  be  in  vain,  if  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia  be  at  liberty  to  import.  The  western  people 
are  already  calling  out  for  slaves  for  their  new  lands,  and  will  fill  that 
country  with  slaves  if  they  can  be  got  through  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia.  Slavery  discourages  arts  and  manufactures.  The  poor  de- 
spise labor,  when  performed  by  slaves :  they  prevent  the  emigration 

of  whites  who  really  enrich  and  strengthen  a  country As  to 

the  States  being  in  possession  of  the  right  to  import,  this  was  the  case 
with  many  other  rights  now  to  be  properly  given  up.  He  held  it 
essential,  in  every  point  of  view,  that  the  general  government  should 
have  power  to  prevent  the  increase  of  slavery." 

To  this  declaration  in  the  Federal  convention,  I  might  add, 

;,that,  in  the  convention  of  Virginia,  he  alleged,  as  one  of  the 

objections  .  to  the  Constitution,   that  it  continued  the  slave- 

•ade  for  twenty-two  years. 

The  Senator  from  Virginia  wears,  with  equal  dignity  and 

•ace,  the  name  of  the  illustrious  statesman  I  have  quoted. 

[t  is  quite  probable  that  there  is  a  closer  bond  of  connection 


S64)  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

between  them.^  But  how  different  is  their  language,  and  the 
causes  they  have  espoused,  at  the  distance  of  more  than  half 
a  century  from  each  other !  The  patriot  of  the  revolution 
denounced  the  British  government  for  forcing  slaves  upon 
Virginia  against  her  remonstrances.  The  Senator  from  that 
State  is  contending  here,  in  her  name,  for  the  right  to  carry 
slaves  into  Oregon,  against  the  wishes  and  prohibitions  of 
the  inhabitants. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression.  The  four  distin- 
guished individuals  I  have  named  constituted  a  majority  of 
the  delegation  from  Virginia ;  and  I  believe  I  am  authorized, 
from  their  avowed  opinions,  to  say,  that  if  there  had  been  a 
positive  provision  in  the  Constitution  authorizing  Congress 
to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  territories  there- 
after to  be  acquired,  it  would  not  only  not  have  been  deemed 
an  impediment  to  the  accession  of  Virginia  to  the  Union,  but 
that  it  would  have  met  their  decided  approbation.  But  in 
this  case,  as  in  many  others,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
fell  far  short  of  the  reality,  when  they  looked  forward  to  the 
future  progress  of  the  country.  The  period  in  which  they 
lived  was  enveloped  in  uncertainty  and  doubt ;  and  it  was 
only  reserved  to  a  few  of  the  more  sanguine  to  obtain  some 
partial  glimpses  of  the  prosperity  and  fame  to  which  their 
country  was  destined.  It  was  the  very  limited  foreknowl- 
edge of  her  growth  and  extension,  which  left  so  many  of 
the  exigencies  we  have  met  unprovided  for  by  direct  and 
positive  regulation. 

Mr.  President,  it  was  chiefly  in  the  school  of  Virginia  that 
the  little  knowledge  I  possess  of  the  theory  of  our  institu- 
tions, and  of  the  principles  of  political  liberty  and  justice, 
was  acquired.  I  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  Mr. 
Jefferson  as  a  standard,  to  which  we  might  safely  refer  for 
the  settlement  of  most  questions  of  political  power  and 
duty:    and  it  is  with  something    more  than  ordinary  pain 

1  Mr.  Dix  subsequently  ascertained  that  the  Senator  was  a  grandson  of  Col- 
onel Mason. 


w 


governjsients  in  the  territories.  S65 

and  regret  that  I  have  seen  his  principles  assailed,  and  his 
acts  repudiated  and  condemned. 

I  was  not  a  little  surprised,  too,  to  hear  the  Senator  from 
Virginia  rest  the  legal  justification  of  slavery  upon  the 
right  of  conquest,  and  its  introduction  into  that  State  during 
her  colonial  dependence  on  the  common  law  of  England. 
I  had  supposed  that  Blackstone  had  furnished  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  mistaken  pretensions  which  had  been  set  up 
on  both  these  foundations  to  support  the  fabric  of  slavery 
in  the  American  colonies  and  their  successors,  the  States. 
I  hold  in  my  hand  a  volume  of  the  English  commentator, 
edited  by  St.  George  Tucker,  who  was  a  professor  of  law 
in  the  University  of  William  and  Mary,  and  one  of  the 
judges  of  the  general  court  of  Virginia.  To  this  volume 
is  appended  an  article  or  tract  written  by  him,  "  On  the 
state  of  Slavery  in  Virginia."  Sir,  it  is  in  this  edition  of 
the  writings  of  the  great  English  commentator  that  many 
of  us  of  the  North  have  studied  the  principles  of  English 
law,  and  from  the  tracts,  which  are  appended  to  the  several 
volumes,  that  we  have  learned  to  consider  Virginia  as  the 
great  enemy  of  slavery  extension.  I  propose  to  read  a  few 
extracts  from  this  volume,  to  show  how  widely  different  are 
the  grounds  now  assumed  and  those  on  which  the  young  men 
of  Virginia,  and  of  the  country  generally,  were  instructed, 
half  a  century  ago,  in  the  principles  of  political  liberty  and 
justice. 

And,  first,  as  to  the  origin  of  slavery.  Judge  Tucker 
quotes  largely  from  Blackstone,  denying  that  slavery  rests 
either  upon  the  law  of  nations,  by  which,  according  to  Jus- 
tinian, "  one  man  is  made  subject  to  another  contrary  to 
nature,"  or  upon  captivity  or  conquest,  or  upon  the  civil 
law,  by  which  a  man  may  suffer  himself  to  be  sold  "  for 
the  sake  of  sharing  the  price  given  for  him."  He  then 
proceeds :  — 

"Thus,  by  the  most  olear,  manly,  and  convincing  reasoning,  does 
this  excellent  author  refute  every  claim  upon  which  the  practice  of 


SS6  SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 

slavery  is  founded,  or  by  which  it  has  been  supposed  to  be  justified,  at 
least  in  modern  times.  But  were  we  even  to  admit,  that  a  captive 
taken  in  a  just  war  might  by  his  conqueror  be  reduced  to  a  state  of 
slavery,  this  could  not  justify  the  claim  of  Europeans  to  reduce 
the  natives  of  Africa  to  that  state.  It  is  a  melancholy,  though  well- 
known  fact,  that,  in  order  to  furnish  supplies  of  those  unhappy  people 
for  the  purposes  of  the  slave-trade,  the  Europeans  have  constantly,  by 
the  most  insidious  (I  had  almost  said  infernal)  arts,  fomented  a  kind  of 
perpetual  warfare  among  the  ignorant  and  miserable  people  of  Africa ; 
and  instances  have  not  been  wanting  where,  by  the  most  shameful 
breach  of  faith,  they  have  trepanned  and  made  slaves  of  the  sellers  as 
well  as  the  sold.  That  such  horrid  practices  have  been  sanctioned  by 
civilized  nations  ;  that  a  nation  ardent  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  and 
enjoying  its  blessings  in  the  fullest  extent,  can  continue  to  vindicate  a 
right  established  upon  such  a  foundation ;  that  a  people  who  have  de- 
clared ^  That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent,'  ^ 
and  have  made  this  declaration  the  first  article  in  the  formation  of 
their  government,  should  in  defiance  of  so  sacred  a  truth,  recognized 
by  themselves  in  so  solemn  a  manner,  and  on  ^o  important  an  occasion, 
tolerate  a  practice  incompatible  therewith,  —  is  such  an  evidence  of 
the  weakness  and  inconsistency  of  human  nature,  as  every  man  who 
hath  a  spark  of  patriotic  fire  in  his  bosom  must  wish  to  see  removed 
from  his  own  country.  If  ever  there  was  a  cause,  if  ever  an  occasion, 
in  which  all  hearts  should  be  united,  every  nerve  strained,  and  every 
power  exerted,  surely  the  restoration  of  human  nature  to  its  inalien- 
able right,  is  such.  Whatever  obstacles,  therefore,  may  hitherto  have 
retarded  the  attempt,  he  that  can  appreciate  the  honor  and  happiness 
of  his  country  will  think  it  time  that  we  should  attempt  to  surmount 
them." 

Such,  according"  to  Judge  Tucker,  is  the  foundation  on 
which  slavery  in  Virginia  and  in  the  other  States  rests,  — 
not  on  conquest,  not  on  any  right  derived  from  legitimate 
vi^arfare,  but  on  violence  and  treachery.  I  do  not  cite  this 
authority  to  create  prejudice  of  any  sort.  My  only  pur- 
pose is  to  meet  arguments  on  the  other  side. 

The  common  law  of  England  utterly  repudiated  slavery. 
To  use  the  language  of  one  of  her  great  commentators, 
"  The  law  of  England  abhors,  and  will  not  endure  the  exist- 
ence of,  slavery  within  this  nation."  In  the  colonies  it  was 
introduced  by  virtue    of  the  prerogative    of  the  crown,  as 

1  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights,  art.  1. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  SOT] 

the  fountain  of  chartered  rights,  and  as  the  arbiter  of  com- 
merce. Nothing,  I  beheve,  is  better  settled  in  English  law 
than  this.  Slavery  was  at  one  time,  it  is  true,  regulated  by 
act  of  Parliament,  rather  by  recognizing  the  laws  of  the 
colonies  than  by  original  legislation  ;  but  the  common  law 
always  rejected  it  as  unnatural  and  unjust. 

Virginia  uniformly  acted  in  accordance  with  the  elevated 
sentiments  expressed  by  Judge  Tucker.  She  imposed  duties 
on  slaves  brought  within  her  limits  as  early  as  1699, — 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.  In  17«^9,  she  imposed  a 
duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  all  slaves  imported  from  Maryland, 
North  Carolina,  or  other  places  in  America.  In  177^?  she 
petitioned  the  King  of  England  to  allow  her  to  prohibit 
the  importation  of  slaves  from  Africa.  I  quote  from  the 
petition  :  — 

"The  importation  of  slaves  into  the  colonies  from  the  coast  of 
Africa  hath  long  been  considered  as  a  trade  of  great  inhumanity,  and 
under  its  present  encouragement  we  have  too  much  reason  to  fear  will 
endanger  the  very  existence  of  your  Majesty's  American  dominions. 

"We  are  sensible  that  some  of  your  Majesty's  subjects  of  Great 
Britain  may  reap  emoluments  from  this  sort  of  traffic ;  but  when  we 
consider  that  it  greatly  retards  the  settlement  of  the  colonies  with  more 
useful  inhabitants,  and  may,  in  time,  have  the  most  destructive  influ- 
ence, we  presume  to  hope,  that  the  interest  of  a  few  will  be  disre- 
garded, when  placed  in  competition  with  the  security  and  happiness 
of  such  numbers  of  your  Majesty's  dutiful  and  loyal  subjects. 

"  Deeply  impressed  with  these  sentiments,  we  most  humbly  beseech 
your  Majesty  to  remove  all  those  restraints  on  your  Majesty's  governors 
of  this  colony,  which  inhibit  their  assenting  to  such  laws  as  might 
check  so  very  pernicious  a  commerce." 

Judge  Tucker  says  :  — 

"  This  petition  produced  no  effect,  as  appears  from  the  first  clause 
of  our  Constitution,  where,  among  acts  of  misrule,  'the  inhuman 
use  of  the  royal  negative,'  in  refusing  us  permission  to  exclude  slaves 
from  us  by  law,  is  enumerated  among  the  reasons  for  separating  from, 
Great  Britain" 

The  clause  in  the  constitution    of  Virginia   is   in    these 
words :  — 


368  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

"  Whereas,  George  the  Third,  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
and  Elector  of  Hanover,  heretofore  intrusted  with  the  exercise  of  the 
kingly  office  in  this  Government,  hath  endeavored  to  pervert  the  same 
into  a  detestable  and  insupportable  tyranny,  putting  his  negative  on 
laws  the  most  wholesome  and  necessary  for  the  public  good ; "  [Here 
follows  an  enumeration  of  other  acts ;]  by  prompting  our  negroes  to 
rise  in  arms  against  us,  —  those  very  negroes  whom,  by  an  inhuman 
use  of  his  negative,  he  hath  refused  us  permission  to  exclude  by  law." 

Judge  Tucker  adds  :  — 

"  The  wishes  of  the  people  of  this  colony  were  not  sufficient  to 
counterbalance  the  interest  of  the  English  merchants  trading  to  Africa, 
and  it  is  probable,  that,  however  disposed  to  put  a  stop  to  so  infamous 
a  traffic  by  law,  we  should  never  have  been  able  to  effect  it,  so  long  as 
we  might  have  continued  dependent  on  the  British  government;  an 
object  sufficient  of  itself  to  justify  revolution." 

And  now,  sir,  I  ask,  will  Virginia  insist  on  extending 
to  other  communities  an  evil  which  she  deplored,  and  thus 
be  guilty  of  an  act  which  she  considered,  when  done  by  the 
British  king,  as  a  sufficient  justification  of  revolution,  — 
an  act  enumerated  in  the  first  clause  of  her  constitution 
among  the  reasons  for  separating  from  Great  Britain  1 
Mr.  Jefferson,  as  we  all  know,  introduced  into  the  original 
draught  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  a  clause  repro- 
bating the  conduct  of  the  British  king  in  forcing  slaves 
upon  the  American  colonies ;  but  it  was  struck  out,  to  use 
his  own  language,  "  in  complaisance  to  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  who  had  never  attempted  to  restrain  the  importa- 
tion of  slaves,  and  who,  on  the  contrary,  still  wished  to 
continue  it."  Sir,  are  we  willing  to  do  towards  other  com- 
munities dependent  on  us  what  we  condemned  in  the  British 
king,  —  what  we  relied  on  as  one  of  the  grounds  of  our 
justification  in  appealing  to  the  sword  for  a  vindication  of 
our  rights  and  the  assertion  of  our  independence?  What 
matters  it  to  the  inhabitants  of  Oregon,  or  New  Mexico,  or 
California,  whether  slaves  are  introduced  from  Africa  or 
from  the  States  of  the  Union  in  which  they  are  bred  1  Sir, 
let  us  abstain  from  injustice  and  wrong.  If  we  insist  on 
carrying  slaves  to  those  territories,  —  if  the  arm  of  the  pub- 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE   TERRITORIES.  S69 

lie  authority  is  employed,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  placing  them  there,  and  in  uprooting,  in  two  of 
the  territories,  the  fundamental  law  of  Mexico,  which  de- 
clares slavery  to  be  forever  prohibited,  —  it  would  not  be 
surprising,  when  those  distant  communities  shall  in  the 
progress  of  events  have  grown  to  manhood,  if  they  should 
declare  themselves  "  free  and  independent,"  and  among 
the  causes  of  the  separation  charge  us,  as  we  charged 
the  British  king,  with  forcing  slavery  upon  them  against 
their  wishes  and  their  remonstrances.  If  this  was  a  just 
cause  of  separation  for  us,  why  would  it  not  be  so  for  them  1 
God  forbid  that  history  should  record  such  a  passage  as 
this,  to  confound  and  shame  our  descendants  ! 

It  has  been  said,  that  this  territory  should  be  divided,  so 
that  a  portion  of  it  may  be  left  open  to  the  introduction  of 
slaves ;  that  it  has  been  acquired  by  the  common  treasure 
and  the  common  blood  of  the  whole  Union,  and  that  it 
would  be  unjust  to  exclude  a  portion  of  the  citizens  ,of  the 
Union  from  it. 

In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  admit  that  there  would  be  any 
exclusion  if  slavery  were  prohibited.  It  would  be  open  to 
every  freeman  in  the  community.  But,  even  on  the  score 
of  an  equitable  division,  —  if  the  propriety  of  such  a  divisr 
ion  can  be  admitted,  when  the  question  is,  whether  laws 
abolishing  slavery  shall  be  abrogated,  —  I  hold  that  the 
territory  should  be,  as  it  now  is,  free.  When  Florida  was 
acquired,  we  did  not  ask  that  any  portion  of  it  should  be 
set  apart  for  immigration  from  the  free  States.  We  claimed 
no  division.  We  gave  it  all  up  to  the  South.  And  yet 
it  was  purchased  by  the  common  blood  and  the  common 
treasure  of  the  whole  Union.  The  soil  of  Florida  has  been 
crimsoned  by  the  blood,  and  whitened  by  the  bones  of  North- 
ern men  sacrificed  in  the  wars  waged  to  secure  it.  Includ- 
ing the  price  paid  for  it,  it  has  drawn  forty  millions  of  dol- 
lars from  the  public  treasury,  to  be  reimbursed,  for  the  most 
part,  by  the  toil  and    contributions    of  the   North.     What 

47 


g^O  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

have  we  received  in  return  on  this  principle  of  an  equitable 
division  %     Nothing  ;  nothing. 

It  is  the  same  with  Texas.  It  is  true,  the  Missouri  com- 
promise line  was  drawn  across  that  State,  leaving  to  the 
north  of  it  a  strip,  narrow,  misshapen,  barren,  and  broken, 
for  northern  immigration.  For  all  purposes  of  an  equitable 
division,  it  would  have  been  a  deception,  if  it  had  been  pre- 
tended. Why,  sir,  this  very  war,  which  has  just  terminated, 
grew  out  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  It  is  part  and  parcel 
of  the  acquisition.  What  will  it  cost  ?  At  least  eighty  mill- 
ions of  dollars,  when  arrears  are  liquidated,  bounty  lauds  set 
apart,  and  pensions  fully  paid.  For  this  acquisition  the 
North  has  contributed  its  full  share  in  blood,  and,  from  its 
greater  ability  for  consumption,  will  pay  the  largest  portion 
of  the  treasure  by  which  it  has  been  purchased.  Taking 
Texas  into  the  account,  with  its  three  hundred  thousand 
square  miles,  and  its  capacity  for  production,  I  hold  that  an 
equitable  division  —  if  the  propriety  of  it  were  to  be  con- 
ceded —  should  leave  California  and  New  Mexico  free. 

Let  us  look  at  the  money  account,  and  see  how  that 
stands.  Florida  has  cost  us  forty  millions  of  dollars,  and 
Texas  eighty  millions.  For  New  Mexico  and  California 
we  are  to  pay,  including  claims  of  our  own  citizens,  twenty 
millions.  Deduct  this  from  the  other,  and  we  have  a  bal- 
ance of  one  hundred  millions,  which  we  have  paid  for  new 
territory  given  up  wholly  to  the  South.  The  blood,  the 
treasure,  the  surface,  —  everything  taken  into  the  account,  — 
there  is  an  overwhelming  balance  in  favor  of  the  North; 
and  on  every  principle  we  are  entitled  to  New  Mexico  and 
California.  But,  sir,  I  will  not  put  it  on  this  narrow  ground. 
I  hold,  that,  if  we  acquire  territory  which  is  free,  it  should 
remain  so,  and  this  on  high  principle,  —  that  the  United 
States  shall  not  be  instrumental  to  the  extension  of  slavery, 
and  stand  before  the  world,  in  this  age  of  intellectual  light 
and  of  moral  elevation,  in  the  attitude  of  ministering  to  the 
propagation  of  an  evil  for  the  presence  of  which  among  us 
we  can  only  justify  ourselves  by  necessity. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE   TERRITORIES. 


671 


There  is  one  argument  on  the  other  side  against  restric- 
tion, —  if  it  may  not  rather  be  termed  a  complaint,  or  an 
accusation,  —  which  I  cannot  pass  by  in  silence.  Gentle- 
men have  represented  us,  who  oppose  the  extension  of 
slavery,  as  intending  to  hem  their  slaves  in,  to  "  pen  them 
up,"  to  surround  them  with  "  walls  of  circumvallation,"  to 
crowd  them  together  and  leave  them  to  perish;  and  we 
have  been  assailed  with  such  outbursts  of  eloquent  indigna- 
tion as  it  has  never  before  been  my  pleasure  to  hear  on  this 
floor.  Pens  and  walls  of  circumvallation !  These  are  ex- 
pressive forms  of  speech,  Mr.  President.  They  are  not 
ungrateful  to  the  imagination.  They  combine  the  famil- 
iar associations  of  rural  economy  with  those  which  be- 
long to  the  nobler  occupation  of  arms.  They  are  redolent 
of  the  classics  —  the  gratum  opus  agricoUs^  and  the  nunc 
horrentia  Mar  Us  arma.  Why,  sir,  an  innocent  by-stander 
might  have  supposed,  from  the  expressions  of  horror  and 
disgust  with  which  we  have  been  visited,  that  we  had  de- 
vised, in  good  earnest,  some  unnatural  scheme  for  penning  up 
or  walling  in  this  unfortunate  African  race.  Now,  if  gentle- 
men will  consider  the  facts,  I  think  they  will  find  not  the 
slightest  occasion  for  any  exuberance  of  feeling,  either  in 
its  higher  phases  of  indignant  passion,  or  in  its  lower  tones 
of  commiseration  and  sympathy.  What  is  the  area  of  the 
slaveholding  States  \  What  is  the  size  of  the  enclosure  in 
which  the  negro  race  is  to  be  shut  up  by  those  who  oppose 
the  extension  of  slavery]  More  than  nine  hundred  thou- 
sand square  miles,  —  more  than  the  entire  surface  of  France, 
Spain,  Portugal,  Germany  proper,  Prussia,  Switzerland, 
and  Italy,  combined,  ■ —  nearly  equal  to  two  thirds  of  the 
entire  surface  of  Europe,  Russia  excluded,  —  a  greater  area 
than  that  which,  in  the  eastern  hemisphere,  sustains  a  pop- 
ulation of  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  souls  !  Let  us 
turn  to  the  non-slaveholding  States,  and  see  how  their  sur- 
face compares  with  that  of  the  slaveholding.  What  is  their 
area,  Mr.  President  %    But   little  more  than  four  hundred 


87^ 


SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 


thousand  square  miles,  —  not  half  the  geographical  extent 
of  the  slaveholding.  Thus,  with  an  area  not  half  as  great 
as  that  of  the  slaveholding  States,  the  free  States  are  charged 
with  aggression  and  injustice,  because  they  will  not  consent 
to  the  extension  of  slavery  beyond  its  present  limits  into 
districts  of  country  in  which  it  does  not  exist.  And,  what 
is  more  extraordinary,  we  are  accused  of  inhumanity  be- 
cause we  propose,  to  use  the  language  of  our  accusers,  "  to 
pen  up "  the  African  race  on  an  area  nearly  a  million 
of  square  miles  in  extent!  Really,  this  subject  is  hardly 
susceptible  of  being  treated  with  becoming  gravity ;  and  I 
dismiss  it. 

Let  me  now  look  a  moment  at  the  provisions  of  this  bill, 
so  far  as  they  profess  to  offer  us  a  compromise  of  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  territories.  And  here  I  desire  to  say, 
that  I  intend  no  reflection  upon  the  conduct  or  motives  of 
the  committee,  collectively  or  individually.  I  deal  only  with 
the  measure;  but  of  that  I  must  speak  freely  and  frankly. 

There  are  but  two  direct  references  to  slavery  in  the  bill : 
they  are  contained  in  the  twenty-sixth  and  thirty-third  sec- 
tions, and  both  are  to  the  same  purport.  They  prohibit 
the  territorial  governments  of  California  and  New  Mexico 
from  legislating  on  the  subject. 

There  is  one  indirect  reference  to  slavery.  It  is  contained 
in  the  twelfth  section  of  the  bill,  which  declares  the  laws 
now  in  force  in  Oregon  to  be  valid  and  operative  for  three 
months  after  the  legislative  assembly  meets ;  and,  as  we  all 
know,  one  of  these  laws  prohibits  slavery. 

These,  then,  are  the  great  provisions  of  this  bill.  They 
leave  the  whole  of  New  Mexico  and  California  open  to  the 
introduction  of  slaves,  and  prohibit  the  territorial  govern- 
ments from  legislating  on  the  subject,  even  if  disposed  to 
legislate  for  their  exclusion.  And,  in  consideration  of  this 
abandonment  of  all  the  territory  we  have  acquired  from 
Mexico  to  slavery,  we  have  received  from  the  hands  of  the 
committee  the  boon  of  freedom  for  three  months  in  Oregon. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE   TERRITORIES. 


378 


This  is  the  great  concession  to  the  non-slaveholding  States ; 
and  this  is  presented  to  us  as  a  compromise,  — a  compromise 
which  surrenders  everything  on  one  side,  and  concedes 
nothing  on  the  other.  Let  me  pursue  this  subject,  by  ex- 
amining some  of  the  propositions  with  which  this  bill  was 
ushered  into  the  Senate  Chamber  by  the  Senator  from  Del- 
aware,^ as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  eight.  They  are 
so  extraordinary  that  I  cannot  forbear  to  pay  them  a  pass- 
ing notice.  I  hold  them  to  be  a  true  exposition  of  the 
meaning  and  the  object  of  the  bill  by  the  one  who,  of  all 
others,  is  best  qualified  to  interpret  it,  —  the  one  by  whom 
it  was  drawn.  I  give  more  credence  to  his  interpretation  of 
it  because,  on  a  careful  examination,  I  can  put  no  other 
construction  on  it  myself. 

The  first  proposition  is  this  (I  read  from  his  remarks):  — 

"  While  it  was  admitted  on  all  sides  that  by  far  the  greatest  portion 
of  the  Territories  was  properly  adapted  to  free  labor,  and  would  neces- 
sarily be  free  soil  forever,  yet  it  was  also,  with  equal  unanimity,  con- 
ceded that  there  was  a  portion  of  it  where  free  labor  could  never  be 
introduced,  owing  to  the  climate  and  the  peculiar  productions  of  that 
portion."  « 

I  consider  this  proposition  unsound  in  all  its  parts.  In 
the  first  place,  our  own  experience  teaches  us  that  slaves 
will  be  carried  wherever  they  are  permitted  to  go ;  that  no 
soil  will  be  free  where  they  are  not  excluded  by  law.  They 
were  taken  into  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river. 
There  are  now  five  slaveholding  States  north  of  SQ""  80^: 
Missouri,  Maryland,  Delaware,  Virginia,  and  Kentucky. 
On  a  former  occasion,  I  said  that  slaves  would  be  valuable 
in  any  part  of  the  country,  in  the  early  stages  of  settlement, 
where  the  demand  for  labor  is  urgent.  And  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying,  that,  if  this  bill  passes  both  Houses, 
and  becomes  a  law,  they  will  be  carried  into  every  part  of 
New  Mexico  and  California  which  is  habitable.  This  will 
be  its  practical  effect.     Even  if  the  northern  portion  shall  in 

1  Mr.  Clayton. 


874  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

future  years  abolish  slavery,  it  will  be  left  with  a  black  pop- 
ulation,—  a  burden  and  an  encumbrance  to  the  white  race, 
and  an  impediment  to  its  moral  and  physical  development. 

But  the  latter  part  of  the  proposition  is  far  more  objec- 
tionable than  the  first ;  and  I  regret  exceedingly  to  hear 
that  it  was  conceded  with  unanimity.  I  deny  that  there  is 
any  portion  of  these  territories  where  free  labor  can  never  be 
introduced.  I  deny  that  there  is  any  portion  of  the  globe 
which  nature  designed  for  slavery.  It  would  be  an  impeach- 
ment of  the  character  and  the  purposes  of  the  great  Author 
of  the  Universe  to  concede  that  there  is  any  portion  of  the 
earth  in  which  we  cannot  "  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  "  where- 
with God  has  made  us  free.  I  deny  that  there  is  any  por- 
tion of  Oregon,  or  New  Mexico,  or  California,  to  the 
cultivation  of  which  slave  labor  is  indispensable.  The  sug- 
gestion is  as  unsound  in  fact  as  it  is  in  philosophy.  I  do 
not  admit  that  there  is  any  portion  of  those  territories  to 
which  African,  much  less  slave  labor,  is  indispensable. 
There  is  no  portion  of  it  less  suited  to  white  labor  than  the 
southern  portion  of  Spain, — none  which  has  a  more  fiery 
sun  than  Andalusia, — where  slavery  does  not  exist.  Be- 
sides, there  is  a  free  Indian  population,  natives  of  the  ch- 
mate,  willing  to  work,  singularly  docile,  and  adequate  to  all 
the  demands  for  labor  for  years  to  come. 

I  regret  exceedingly  to  have  heard  the  admission  that 
slave  labor  is  necessary  in  these  territories.  But  I  have 
ceased  to  be  surprised  at  anything  from  any  quarter.  I 
have  heard  one  of  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence impugned,  and  its  author  charged  with  error  in 
advocating  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  territories  of 
the  United  States.  I  have  heard  negro  slavery  defended  as 
founded  in  right,  as  justified  by  the  laws  of  God,  and  lauded 
as  "  the  mildest  species  of  bondage  which  labor  ever  bore  to 
capital  on  the  face  of  the  globe."  I  confess  I  have  been 
astonished  at  these  declarations,  so  different  from  all  I  have 
heard  and  read  of  the  sentiments  of  the  great  men  of  the 


GOVERNIklENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  3^5 

Republic  from  its  foundation  to  the  present  day.  I  have 
been  taught,  and  taught  by  the  South,  to  regard  slavery  as 
an  evil  to  be  got  rid  of,  and  not  as  a,  good  to  be  commu- 
nicated to  other  communities. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware,  after  proposing  to  organize 
governments  for  California  and  New  Mexico,  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  governor,  secretary,  and  judges,  to  compose  a 
temporary  legislature,  without  the  power  to  legislate  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  proceeds :  "  It  was  thought  that  by  this 
means  Congress  would  avoid  the  decision  of  this  distracting 
question,  leaving  it  to  be  settled  by  the  silent  operation  of 
the  Constitution  itself;  and  that,  in  case  Congress  should 
refuse  to  touch  the  subject,  the  country  would  be  slaveholding 
only  where,  by  the  laws  of  nature,  slave  labor  was  effective, 
and  free  labor  could  not  maintain  itself! " 

This  proposition  is  subject  to  the  great  and  fundamental 
objection  I  have  taken  to  the  other.  It  contains  a  direct 
admission,  that  by  the  laws  of  nature  a  portion  of  the  coun- 
try or  territory  will  be  slaveholding.  I  deny  that  nature  has 
any  such  law.  It  is  the  law  of  man,  doing  violence  to  all 
the  dictates  of  nature,  that  makes  a  country  slaveholding, 
either  by  its  own  voluntary  act,  or  by  the  act  of  others  for- 
cing slavery  upon  it. 

But  the  chief  and  radical  objection  is,  that  it  contains  9 
further  admission  that  the  territories  are  to  be  left  open  to 
the  introduction  of  slaves, —  that  they  will  be  slaveholding 
wherever  slaves  can  be  carried.  It  is  an  admission  that  the 
"  silent  operation  of  the  Constitution  "  will  be  to  make  the 
country  slaveholding  where  slave  labor  will  be  effective.  I 
consider  it  an  entire  abandonment  of  northern  ground. 
What  is  the  ground  taken  by  the  North  ]  It  is,  that  slavery 
shall  be  prohibited  in  the  territories.  The  act  contains  no 
such  prohibition.  It  is  a  complete  surrender  to  the  theories 
and  claims  of  our  friends  of  the  South.  All  they  contend 
for  is,  that  the  territories  shall  be  open,  and  they  left  to  the 
unrestricted  enjoyment  of  the  right  they  assert  to  carry  their 


376  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

slaves  into  any  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States.  It 
is  the  very  extent  of  their  demand.  It  leaves  nothing  for 
them  to  ask  or  desire.  The  distinguished  Senator  from 
South  Carolina  ^  commenced  his  speech  with  the  assertion 
that  all  the  South  desired  was  — no  legislation.  This  has 
been  conceded  —  fully  conceded.  Indeed,  something  more 
has  been  given  up.  It  was  not  enough  to  yield  all  that  was 
asked.  The  territorial  government  is  prohibited  from  legis- 
lating on  the  subject  of  slavery.  This  I  should  not  object 
to,  constituted  as  that  government  is  likely  to  be,  but  for 
a  single  consideration :  as  a  precedent,  it  may  be  of  impor- 
tance. It  will  constitute  an  argument  in  favor  of  extending 
the  same  prohibition  to  the  legislative  assemblies,  when  they 
shall  be  hereafter  created.  But  I  will  not  look  beyond  the 
present.  I  take  it  as  it  is.  The  territorial  government  is 
prohibited  from  legislating ;  Congress  does  not  legislate ; 
and  slavery  will  extend  itself  over  the  whole  of  New  Mex- 
ico and  California.  It  will  enter  the  great  basin  ;  it  will 
take  possession  of  the  maritime  valley  of  California  —  the 
American  Italy ;  and  when  planted  there,  neither  you,  sir, 
nor  I,  nor  our  children,  will  live  to  see  it  eradicated. 

And,  with  this  assurance,  which  no  man  can  reasonably 
doubt,  we  are  invited  to  leave  this  matter  "to  the  silent 
operation  of  the  Constitution" ;  when  we  all  know  that  the 
Constitution  does  no  more  than  vest  in  Congress  the  power 
to  legislate  for  the  territories.  It  is  an  invitation  to  us 
to  leave  this  power  unexercised,  and  to  let  slavery  extend 
itself  wherever  self-interest  can  carry  it.  It  is  the  same 
argument  that  was  used  in  the  Federal  convention  against 
the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade.  Our  fathers  were  invited  to 
leave  the  whole  subject  to  the  laws  of  nature.  It  is  the 
argument  which  has  been  employed  on  all  occasions  to  resist 
every  attempt  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery.  It  was 
urged  against  restrictions  upon  Louisiana,  against  restric- 
tions upon  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river,  against 

1  Mr.  Calhoun. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  gyy 

restrictions  upon  the  territory  west  and  northwest  of  the 
Mississippi,  when  Missouri  was  admitted  into  the  Union. 
Did  those  who  have  gone  before  us  yield  to  these  per- 
suasions of  self-interest?  No,  sir;  they  refused  to  accede 
to  them.  They  prohibited  the  introduction  of  slaves  into 
the  territories.  They  considered  it  as  a  political  question, 
proper  only  to  be  decided  by  themselves,  and  not  to  be 
shuffled  off  upon  the  judiciary.  They  met  the  responsibility 
like  men,  and  decided  it  according  to  the  dictates  of  duty 
and  right.  This  scheme  of  the  committee,  so  far  as  it  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  compromise,  secures  nothing  to  the  North. 
To  the  South  it  yields  up  all.  It  concedes  all  that  is  asked, 
all  that  is  desired.  It  imposes  no  restrictions ;  it  sets  up 
no  barrier ;  it  leaves  the  whole  field  open  to  be  entered, 
and  taken  possession  of,  unresisted  and  unopposed.  It  is 
an  unconditional  surrender  ;  it  has  not  even  the  grace  of 
a  capitulation  upon  terms. 

If  gentlemen  suppose  this  proposition  will  calm  the  pre- 
vailing excitement,  they  are  greatly  mistaken.  What  does  it 
contain  calculated  to  allay  agitation  in  the  North  1  Does  it 
concede  anything  to  the  non-slaveholding  States  1  No,  sir. 
It  excludes  slavery  nowhere  —  not  even  in  Oregon.  It 
only  continues  her  prohibition  in  force  for  three  months  after 
the  first  meeting  of  her  legislative  assembly.  The  prohi- 
bition is  then  to  cease.  From  that  moment  slaves  may  be 
introduced,  unless  the  prohibition  is  reenacted.  They  will 
not  be  excluded  then,  if  Congress  shall  disapprove  the  reen- 
actment.  Oregon  comes  here  with  an  organic  law  prohib- 
iting slavery  forever;  and  we  throw  it  back  upon  her  with  a 
mere  temporary  vitality.  We  virtually  invite  her  to  recon- 
sider it,  as  if  it  had  been  passed  without  due  reflection,  or 
as  if,  on  further  deliberation,  she  may  think  it  advisable  to 
receive  slaves  into  her  bosom.  Indeed,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  her  to  do  anv  act.  She  has  only  to  be  passive.  We 
virtually  repeal  the  prohibition.  And  this  the  committee 
give  us  to    calm   excitement !     Sir,  I  consider  this  whole 

48 


378  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

scheme  of  legislation  unworthy  of  the  high  character  of  the 
country,  unworthy  of  our  fathers,  unworthy  of  ourselves. 
It  is  commended  to  us,  that  Congress  may  avoid  the  decis- 
ion of  the  question.  It  is  an  evasion  of  responsibility, 
which  will  defeat  its  own  purpose.  It  is  sowing  the  seeds 
of  a  future  agitation,  vastly  more  profound  and  exciting 
than  this.  It  is  a  temporary  colonization  of  this  controversy, 
to  be  sent  out  to  the  Pacific  to  stir  up  dissension  among  the 
first  settlers,  and  then  to  be  brought  back  here,  after  a  time, 
to  renew  agitation  among  ourselves.  It  will  turn  out,  like 
every  other  device  of  timidity,  which  shrinks  from  one  em- 
barrassment only  to  plunge  deeper  into  another. 

But,  sir,  we  have  reason  to  be  thankful  that  our  case  is 
not  utterly  void  of  hope.  We  are  flattered  by  the  chairman 
of  the  committee  with  the  assurance,  that  Congress  will  be 
at  liberty  hereafter  to  give  us  the  Missouri  compromise,  and 
run  out  the  line  of  86''  8(y  to  the  Pacific.  He  considers 
the  arrangement  temporary. 

It  is  not  so  with  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina.^ 
He  has  pronounced  it  permanent.  And,  what  is  eminently 
worthy  of  attention,  the  bill  was  to  speak  for  itself.  It  was 
so  announced.  Well,  sir,  it  has  spoken  for  several  members 
of  the  committee;  and  it  is  so  artfully  or  so  inartificially 
contrived,  that  it  speaks  a  totally  different  language  in  each 
case. 

But  let  us  pause  and  survey  this  bow  of  promise  which 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  has  hung  out  in  the  distance 
for  our  encouragement  and  hope  —  the  Missouri  compro- 
mise. When  it  presents  itself,  I  shall  be  opposed  to  it  — 
utterly,  irreconcilably ;  because  it  will  extend  slavery  where 
it  does  not  exist ;  because  it  would  subvert  the  laws  of  Mex- 
ico which  have  abolished  slavery,  and  introduce  it  where  it 
is  prohibited.  It  bears  no  analogy  to  the  compromise  of 
1820.  That  settlement  of  the  question,  which  was  confined 
to  Louisiana,  contracted  the  area   of  slavery.     This  would 

1  Mr.  Calhoun. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  TERRITORIES.  3*79 

extend  it.  The  whole  of  Louisiana  was  open  to  the  intro- 
duction of  slaves.  Slavery  nominally  existed  there.  But 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  north  of  86°  SCK, 
the  territory  was  nearly  uninhabited.  The  compromise  in- 
vaded no  right.  It  was  no  act  of  abolition  or  emancipation; 
but  it  prohibited  the  extension  of  slavery  to  areas  over  which, 
without  such  a  prohibition,  it  would  have  been  extended. 
How  widely  different  is  this  proposition  ]  It  is  to  extend 
slavery  where,  without  the  sanction  of  the  public  authority, 
direct  or  indirect,  it  cannot  go  or  exist.  It  is  a  proposition 
to  establish  slavery  by  law  in  a  district  of  country  more  than 
two  hundred  thousand  square  miles  in  extent,  equal  to  the 
entire  area  of  France  or  the  Spanish  peninsula.  On  every 
principle  of  justice  and  right  I  shall  be  opposed  to  it:  justice 
to  ourselves,  to  our  national  character,  and  to  the  future  mill- 
ions who  are  to  occupy  the  great  Pacific,  or  maritime  valley 
of  California  —  literally  the  Italy  of  America,  in  all  but  the 
monuments  and  classical  recollections  of  the  other.  Let  us 
look  at  this  question  practically.  The  proposed  compromise 
would  carry  out  the  line  of  86°  SCK  to  the  Pacific,  and  pro- 
hibit slavery  north  of  it.  Let  us  see  the  geographical  di- 
visions it  would  make.  It  would  divide  New  Mexico  just 
above  Santa  Fe,  leaving  that  city  and  two  thirds  of  the  entire 
state  or  territory  to  the  South.  How  is  the  distinction  be- 
tween free  and  slave  territory  to  be  maintained  ]  Are  we  to 
have  two  territories  with  separate  political  organizations,  or 
only  one  with  an  astronomical  line  separating  the  bond  from 
the  free  1  Passing  New  Mexico,  the  compromise  line  would 
cross  the  Sierra  Madre,  or  Rocky-Mountain  chain,  and  enter 
a  district  but  little  explored,  but,  so  far  as  known,  barren 
and  almost  worthless,  — leaving  a  strip  of  three  parallels  of 
latitude  to  the  South.  It  would  next  graze  the  great  basin 
of  California  —  one  of  the  most  remarkable  features  in  the 
geographical  conformation  of  this  continent  —  represented 
by  Fremont  as  Asiatic  rather  than  x\merican  in  its  character. 
It  is  five  hundred  miles  in  extent  in  all  directions,  enclosed 


380  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

by  mountains,  —  the  Sierra  Madre  on  one  side,  and  the 
Sierra  Nevada  on  the  other,  —  and  has  its  own  systems  of 
lakes  and  rivers.  It  is  for  the  most  part  sterile,  but  with 
numerous  and  in  some  cases  extensive  tracts  capable  of 
cultivation.  Passing  the  great  basin  without  touching  it,  the 
compromise  line  would  cross  the  Sierra  Nevada,  and  enter 
the  maritime  valley  of  CaUfornia,  five  hundred  miles  in  length 
and  one  hundred  and  fifty  in  width  from  the  summit  of  the 
mountain  chain,  which  forms  its  eastern  boundary,  to  the 
coast  range  on  the  Pacific.  This  valley  —  the  finest  in  the 
western  hemisphere  —  is  represented  by  Fremont  as  bearing 
a  close  resemblance  to  Italy  in  extent,  in  climate,  and  in  its 
capacity  for  production.  It  is  the  natural  region  of  the  vine 
and  the  olive,  and  of  the  infinite  variety  of  grains  and  fruits 
which  the  earth  brings  forth  in  tropical  climates.  Though 
much  farther  north,  it  has  all  the  mildness  of  the  tropical 
regions  on  the  eastern  face  of  this  continent.  The  compro- 
mise line  would  sever  this  noble  valley  latitudinally,  leaving 
four  hundred  miles  to  the  North  and  one  hundred  to  the 
South.  It  yields  nothing  to  the  production  of  which  slave 
labor  is  necessary.  Slavery  would  go  there  as  a  bane  and 
a  hindrance,  rather  than  as  an  aid,  even  to  production. 
Why,  then,  seek  to  introduce  it,  when  no  good  purpose  is  to 
be  answered,  when  it  can  only  prove  an  element  of  unmixed 
evil '?  Why  sever  a  region  which  nature  designed  for  unity 
in  its  geographical  conformation,  its  climate,  soil,  and  capacity 
for  production  '?  How  is  the  social  distinction  which  the 
compromise  line  would  introduce  to  be  preserved  inviolate  ? 
Will  you  have  two  governments,  or  one  with  an  imaginary 
line  to  define  the  boundary  between  slavery  and  freedom  1 
Sir,  this  whole  scheme  of  division  is  wrong  in  all  its  elements, 
—  geographically,  politically,  morally  wrong,  —  and  I  will 
have  no  part  in  it. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  would  be  the  Missouri  compromise 
line,  applied  to  New  Mexico  and  California.  Bad  as  it 
would  be,  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  is  still  worse. 


GOVERNMENTS  IN   THE   TERRITORIES.  381 

It  leaves  all  open :  it  surrenders  all.  It  will  dedicate  the 
whole  of  this  noble  valley  to  slavery,  and  exclude  from  it  the 
freemen  of  the  North,  who  will  not  go  where  their  labor  is 
to  be  degraded  by  mingling  it  with  the  labor  of  blacks. 
Sir,  there  were  gallant  bands  from  the  North  and  West,  who 
"  coined  their  hearts  and  dropped  their  blood  for  drachmas  " 
on  the  ensanguined  plains  of  Mexico  to  make  this  acquisi- 
tion. They  are  gone  beyond  the  reach  of  sympathy  on  the 
one  hand,  or  injustice  on  the  other.  But  against  their  fa- 
thers and  their  children,  you  will  by  this  act  put  forth  an 
edict  of  perpetual  exclusion  from  an  inheritance  purchased 
by  filial  and  paternal  blood. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  ought  not  to  be 
overlooked.  We  have  been  accused,  for  the  last  two  years, 
of  making  war  on  Mexico  to  obtain  territory  for  the  exten- 
sion of  slavery.  We  have  denied  the  truth  of  these  impu- 
tations. We  have  resented  them  as  doing  injustice  to  our 
intentions.  And  yet,  sir,  the  treaty  is  hardly  ratified  before 
we  aire  engaged  in  a  struggle  in  the  American  Senate  to 
extend  slavery  to  the  territory  we  have  acquired.  How 
can  we  stand  up,  in  the  face  of  the  civilized  world,  and  deny 
these  imputations,  if  the  proposition  of  leaving  these  territo- 
ries open  to  the  introduction  of  slaves  is  consummated  ? 

I  do  entreat  our  Southern  friends  earnestly,  solemnly,  not 
lo  press  this  measure  upon  us :  I  mean  that  of  insisting  on 
the  right  to  carry  slaves  into  New  Mexico  and  California. 
I  say  to  you  in  sincerity  and  with  the  deepest  conviction  of 
the  truth  of  what  I  say,  that  the  Northern  feeling  can  go 
no  further  in  this  direction.  I  appeal  to  you,  through  the 
memory  of  the  past,  to  do  us  the  justice  we  have  rendered 
to  you.  You  asked  for  Florida.  You  said  it  shut  you  out 
from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  It  was  an  inlet  for  political 
intrigue  and  social  disorganization.  It  was  necessary  for 
your  safety.  We  united  with  you  to  obtain  it.  Our  blood, 
our  treasure  was  freely  shared  with  you  in  making  the  ac- 
quisition.    We  gave  it   up  to   you  without  reserve.     You 


SS2  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

asked  for  Texas.     It  was  said  to  be  in  danger  of  falling" 
under  the  control  of  your  commercial  rivals.     It  was  neces- 
sary to  your  safety.     You  said  it  would  become  a  theatre 
for  the  intrigues    of  abolitionism.     Your    slave  population 
might  be  endangered  without  it.     We  united  with  you  again, 
and  gave  you  back,  by  legislation  and  arms,  what  you  had 
lost  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  by  diplomacy.     We  have 
now  acquired  free  territory.     We  ask  only  that  it  may  re- 
main free.     Do  not  ask  us  to  unite  with  you  in  extending 
slavery  to  it.     We  abstain  from  all  interference  with  slavery 
where  it  exists.     We  cannot  sanction  its  extension,  directly 
or  indirectly,  where  it  does  not  exist.     And  if  the  authority 
of  the  United  States  is  exerted  for  this  purpose,  —  if  slavery 
is  carried  into  and  established,  as  it  will  be  by  this  bill,  in 
the  territory  we  have  acquired,  —  I  am  constrained  to  say,  — 
I  say  it  in  sorrow,  —  the  bond  of  confidence  which  unites  the 
two  sections  of  the  Union  will  be  rent  asunder,  and  years  of 
alienation  and  unkindness  may  intervene   before  it   can    be 
restored,  if  ever,  in  its  wonted  tenacity  and  strength.     Not 
that  I  have  any  present  fears  for  the  integrity  of  the  Union. 
I  have  not.     It  is  capable  of  sustaining  far    ruder  shocks 
than  any  possible  settlement  of  this  question  can  give.     But 
what  I  fear  is  that  the  current  of  reciprocal  kindness  and 
confidence,  which  runs  through  every  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity, pervading,  refreshing,  invigorating  all,  may  be  turned 
out  of  its  course,  and  forced  into  channels  to  which  the  com- 
mon feeling  is  alien,  and  in  which  it  may  be  converted  into 
a  fountain  of  bitterness  and  strife.     I  conjure  you,  then,  to 
avoid  all  this.     Ask  us  not  to  do  what  every  principle  we 
have  been  taught,  and  taught  by  your  fathers,  to  venerate, 
condemns  as  unnatural  and  unjust. 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA. 

The  following  speech  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Dix  on  the  23d  of  Jan- 
uary, 1849,  in  support  of  a  bill  providing  for  reciprocal  trade  with 
Canada,  in  certain  enumerated  articles.  The  subject  had  been  for 
several  years  before  Congress,  and  though  the  proposition  did  not  finally 
succeed  until  some  years  later,  the  light  shed  upon  it  by  the  debate  of 
1849  no  doubt  contributed  largely  to  its  success. 

Mr.  President  :  Since  this  bill  was  taken  up  for  discus- 
sion I  have  been  unable,  from  indisposition  and  other  causes, 
to  bestow  upon  it  the  reflection  which  is  due  to  the  impor- 
tance of  the  subject.  But  I  will  proceed,  nevertheless,  with 
such  preparation  as  I  have  been  able  to  make,  to  explain  the 
objects  of  the  measure  and  its  probable  effects ;  and  I  will 
endeavor,  at  the  same  time,  to  answer  some  of  the  leading 
objections  which  have  been  made  to  it. 

If  I  entertained  the  belief  that  the  operation  of  the  bill 
would  be  prejudicial  to  the  interest  of  any  portion  of 
the  Union,  I  should  not  be  its  advocate.  The  first  object  of 
all  public  legislation  is  to  advance  the  general  welfare  of  the 
country ;  but  this  object  ought  certainly  not  to  be  sought 
for  at  the  expense  of  any  particular  section,  or  indeed  of 
any  single  interest.  I  believe  this  bill  is  entirely  free  from 
objection  in  this  respect,  that  it  will  be  eminently  advanta- 
geous both  to  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  do  no 
wrong  or  injury  in  any  quarter. 

Before  I  proceed  to  examine  the  practical  operation  of 
the  measure  upon  the  commercial  interests  of  the  two  coun- 
tries, I  wish  to  notice  a  preliminary  objection  which  has 
been  raised. 


384  SPEECHES  IN   THE   SENATE. 

It  is  supposed  that  the  privileges  conferred  by  this  bill 
upon  Canada  will  be  extended,  by  virtue  of  certain  reci- 
procity treaties  into  which  we  have  entered,  to  the  foreign 
states  with  which  those  engagements  have  been  contracted. 
I  take  a  totally  different  view  of  the  subject.  I  believe 
Senators  have  put  an  erroneous  construction  upon  the  obli- 
gation^ of  the  compacts  to  which  they  refer. 

We  have  reciprocity  treaties  with  Russia,  Denmark,  Han- 
over, Prussia,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  the  Hanseatic  repub- 
lics, and  several  other  foreign  countries.  They  are  treaties 
with  sovereign  states,  and,  by  every  fair  rule  of  construc- 
tion, their  stipulations,  so  far  as  they  guarantee  reciprocity, 
must  be  deemed  to  relate  to  engagements  with  other  powers 
equally  independent.  The  commercial  arrangement  proposed 
by  this  bill  is  with  a  European  colony  adjoining  us,  —  one  of 
those  dependencies  which  the  states  of  the  Eastern  hem- 
isphere are  accustomed  to  except  in  their  compacts  with  us 
for  reciprocity  of  commerce  and  navigation.  If  any  of  the 
states  with  which  we  have  treaties  stipulating  for  the  same 
privileges  which  we  confer  on  others  had  dependencies  sit- 
uated like  Canada  in  respect  to  us,  those  states  might  per- 
haps acquire  in  respect  to  such  dependencies  the  same  privi- 
leges we  shall  confer  on  Canada  if  the  bill  passes ;  but  I  do 
not  admit  that  they  would  acquire  those  privileges  for  their 
metropolitan  possessions,  and  for  the  reason  that  colonies 
have  always  been  made  practical  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule  of  international  intercourse.  Possibly  a  special  reser- 
vation may  be  necessary  in  every  compact,  from  the  provis- 
ions of  which  it  is  designed  to  exclude  them  ;  but  I  do  not, 
as  I  shall  show,  consider  it  a  matter  of  any  consequence  in 
this  case.  This  we  know  in  respect  to  Canada,  that  it  is 
not  only  expressly  excluded  from  the  terjns  of  our  commer- 
cial intercourse  with  Great  Britain,  but  it  is  the  subject  of 
distinct  stipulations  ;  and  yet  the  British  Legation,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  wishes  of  the  Canadians,  has  urged  this 
measure  upon  us  under  instructions  from  home,  without  the 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  385 

least  idea  that  they  would  gain  for  Great  Britain  under  our 
reciprocity  treaty  with  her  the  privileges  they  desire  us  to 
confer  on  Canada. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Maryland^  said  that  we  had 
"  given  a  construction  to  these  reciprocal  provisions  worthy 
of  notice ;  "  and  he  alluded  to  our  treaty  with  Portugal  in 
1840,  by  which  it  was  expressly  agreed  that  the  stipulation 
in  our  treaty  with  France  in  1881,  in  regard  to  French 
wines,  should  not  be  interfered  with.  This  construction  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  view  of  the  subject  I  take.  These 
two  treaties  were  with  independent  powers ;  they  were  with 
continental  powers  in  Europe  almost  bordering  on  each 
other ;  and  a  general  stipulation  in  respect  to  equality  of 
duties  necessarily  required  an  express  reservation  to  author- 
ize us  to  make  the  duties  on  any  of  their  products  unequal. 
This,  however,  is  a  totally  different  thing  from  a  commer- 
cial arrangement  between  us  and  a  European  colony  adjoin- 
ing us. 

But  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  our  commercial 
relations  with  Russia,  Prussia,  and  other  powers,  under  the 
reciprocity  treaties  we  have  formed  with  them,  will  not  be 
affected  by  this  bill,  I  put  it  on  other  grounds. 

These  treaties  relate  to  commerce  and  navigation,  and  are 
intended  to  regulate  the  commercial  intercourse  carried  on 
by  those  countries  with  the  United  States  on  the  ocean-.. 
They  have  certainly  npt  been  understood  as  referring  to 
inland  trade  and  exchange  between  countries  bordering  on 
each  other.  The  right  to  regulate  their  interior  intercourse 
with  adjoining  states  has  not  been  supposed  to  be  at  all  im- 
paired by  these  commercial  engagements.  If  it  were  other- 
wise, if  these  treaties  restrained  the  states  which  are  parties 
to  them  from  admitting  articles  free  of  duty  from  a  neigh- 
boring country,  except  upon  condition  of  extending  the  same 
privilege  to  the  other  contracting  parties,  we  should  at  this 
very  moment  be  entitled,  in  our  intercourse  with  Prussia,  to 

1  Mr.  Pearce. 
49 


386  -SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

all  the  benefits  of  the  custom-house  exemptions  of  the  Zoll- 
Verein,  of  which  that  kingdom  is  a  leading-  member.  Prus- 
sia borders  on  a  number  of  the  Zoll-Verein  States.  These 
states  interchange  with  her  their  common  products  free  of 
duty  under  the  Zoll-Verein  compact,  or  Customs  Union. 
They  have  stood  to  each  other  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
we  stand  to  Canada.  They  had  duties  on  their  respective 
products  as  we  have.  They  have  abolished  them,  as  we 
propose  to  do  in  respect  to  Canada  on  a  part  of  ours. 

Now,  will  it  be  contended  that  we  are  entitled  to  the  same 
freedom  of  intercourse  with  Prussia  which  she  shares  with 
those  states,  because  she  has  stipulated  to  impose  no  higher 
duties  on  our  products  than  on  those  of  other  countries'? 
Surely  not ;  and  for  the  very  reason  that  the  stipulations  of 
our  treaty  with  her  are  intended  to  apply  to  external  inter- 
course by  sea,  and  not  to  inland  arrangements  between  bor^ 
dering  states.  The  intention  of  our  treaties  of  reciprocity 
is  stamped  upon  them  in  characters  not  to  be  misunderstood. 
The  first  stipulation  (for  those  of  latter  years  are  of  much 
the  same  import)  limits  the  reciprocal  liberty  of  commerce 
and  navigation  which  the  treaties  were  formed  to  secure  to 
"  the  ports,  places,  waters,  and  rivers  of  the  territories  of 
each  party,  wherein  foreign  commerce  is  permitted."  The 
second  stipulation  regulates  the  duties  to  be  imposed  on  the 
vessels  of  the  contracting  parties  engaged  in  that  commerce. 
The  third  regulates  the  duties  to  be  paid  on  the  importation 
or  exportation  of  their  respective  products.  I  admit  that, 
by  the  letter  of  these  treaties,  this  bill  might  affect  our  com- 
mercial relations  under  them.  But  I  insist  that  all  compacts 
are  to  be  construed  according  to  their  manifest  intention, 
not  by  one  stipulation  alone,  but  by  all  which  relate  to  the 
same  subject-matter ;  and  I  might  apply  these  observations 
with  great  force  to  my  first  position,  and  say  that  those 
treaties  did  not  contemplate  commercial  relations  with  colo- 
nial dependencies  like  Canada.  But  the  whole  tenor  of 
their  stipulations  shows  them  to  have  been  designed  to  reg- 


TRADE   WITH   CANADA. 


887 


ulate  commerce  on  the  sea,  and  not  the  interior  traffic  car- 
ried on  by  the  inhabitants  of  countries  separated  from  each 
other  by  a  mere  statistical  boundary  or  an  astronomical  line. 
They  are  treaties  of  commerce  and  navigation  —  not  of  one 
alone,  but  of  both  combined. 

When  this  measure  was  first  proposed,  I  inquired  of  the 
State  and  Treasury  Departments  whether  it  would  affect 
our  commercial  relations  with  foreign  states  under  reciproci- 
ty treaties,  and  a  decided  answer  was  given  by  both  in  the 
negative.  My  own  examination  of  the  subject  has  brought 
me  to  the  same  conclusion,  whether  upon  the  same  grounds 
I  do  not  know. 

If  this  construction  be  erroneous,  if  the  privileges  pro- 
posed to  be  conferred  on  Canada  will  be  extended  to  the  for- 
eign states  referred  to,  then,  I  repeat,  we  shall,  on  the  same 
principle,  become  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  Zoll-Verein, 
in  Prussia,  and  perhaps  gain  access  for  our  products,  through 
her,  to  all  the  other  states  of  that  political  association,  com- 
prehending, I  believe,  twenty-eight  out  of  the  thirty-seven 
states  of  the  Germanic  Confederation.  This  would,  prima 
facte,  be  an  immense  advantage,  though  it  is  not  clear  that 
it  would  be  of  any  practical  benefit.  But  no  one  dreamt, 
when  our  reciprocity  treaties  were  formed,  that  they  con- 
ferred any  such  privileges  on  us  ;  and  I  venture  to  say  it 
will  never  occur  to  any  of  the  states  which  are  parties  to 
those  treaties  that  the  proposed  arrangement  with  Canada 
will  confer  any  new  privileges  on  them. 

But  if  it  were  otherwise,  the  privileges  the  bill  confers 
are  reciprocal.  We  concede  nothing  which  we  do  not  gain 
in  return.  If  Hanover,  Prussia,  and  Mecklenburg-Schwerin 
should  acquire  the  privileges  conferred  on  Canada  by  this 
bill,  we  should  acquire  in  respect  to  them  the  privileges  the 
bill  confers  on  us.  There  would  be  entire  reciprocity. 
Our  chances  of  profiting  by  the  arrangement  would  be  as 
good  as  theirs.  The  Hanse-Towns  might  send  us  a  few 
more  hams  ;  but  there  is  scarcely  an  article  enumerated  in 


388  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

the  bill  which  can  be  brought  to  us  with  advantage  from  the 
states  on  the  German  Ocean  and  the  Baltic.  We  are  too 
distant  for  agricultural  exchanges.  Besides,  we  are  essen- 
tially as  agricultural  as  they.  Wheat  is  the  only  article 
likely,  under  any  circumstances,  to  come  here,  except  in  the 
most  inconsiderable  quantities.  In  1887,  when  flour  was 
ten,  eleven,  and  twelve  dollars  a  barrel,  we  received  over  a 
million  of  bushels  of  wheat  from  Germany,  not  half  the  quan- 
tity we  sent  in  1847  into  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  and  New 
Brunswick ;  but  in  the  former  year,  under  the  influence  of 
these  enormous  prices,  England  herself  sent  us  over  seven 
hundred  thousand  bushels,  —  nearly  as  much  as  Germany  ; 
and  yet  she  imported  in  184^7  over  eighty-six  millions  of 
bushels  of  grain.  But  such  occasions  very  rarely  occur  ; 
and  when  they  do  occur,  the  tendency  of  importation  is  de- 
cidedly beneficial.  Its  influence  is  to  check  prices  when 
they  reach  the  high  point  of  extravagance. 

Senators  have  expressed  the  apprehension  that,  if  this  bill 
passes,  we  shall,  under  the  construction  they  give  to  it,  be 
deluged  with  wheat  from  the  Baltic.  Let  us  see  how  much 
ground  there  is  for  this  apprehension.  On  the  1st  of  Feb- 
ruary, wheat  will  pay  but  one  shilling  sterling  a  quarter  in 
Great  Britain,  —  about  three  cents  a  bushel.  She  imports 
from  us :  we  export  to  her.  The  price  of  wheat  there  must, 
therefore,  always  be  as  much  higher  than  the  price  here, 
when  she  has  a  deficiency  and  we  a  surplus,  as  the  cost  of 
carrying  wheat  to  her  from  the  United  States ;  and  this  cost, 
I  am  told,  is  about  twenty  cents  the  bushel.  When  it  is  a 
dollar  here,  it  must  be  $1.^0  there.  Now,  let  us  see  what 
a  vessel  laden  with  wheat  from  the  Baltic  would  be  likely  to 
do  in  such  a  case.  She  must,  to  come  here,  sail  directly  by 
the  ports  of  Great  Britain,  where  she  can  get  a  dollar  and 
twenty  cents  a  bushel,  deducting  the  three  cents  duty  which 
she  must  pay.  She  gets,  then,  a  dollar  and  seventeen  cents. 
Suppose  she  continues  her  voyage  to  the  United  States,  how 
will  the  account  stand'?    Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA.  389 

ment,  that  the  wheat  she  brings  will  come  in  free  of  duty 
under  our  reciprocity  treaties,  she  will  get  one  dollar  a 
bushel ;  but  from  this  amount  she  must  deduct  twenty  cents 
for  cost  of  transportation  from  Great  Britain  here.  She 
will  get  eighty  cents  here  instead  of  one  dollar  and  seventeen 
cents  in  England,  —  thirty-seven  cents  a  bushel  less  ;  and  this, 
on  a  cargo  of  several  thousand  bushels,  will  amount  to  no 
inconsiderable  sum.  The  Northern  Germans  have  the  repu- 
tation of  being  rather  heavy,  but  they  are,  so  far  as  I  have 
had  the  opportunity  of  observing  them,  the  Yankees  of  the 
Continent  in  bargaining ;  and  I  think  they  will  be  found 
altogether  too  astute  to  engage  in  any  such  enterprises  as 
honorable  Senators  apprehend.  They  will  carry  on  a  severe 
competition  with  us  in  supplying  England  with  wheat ;  but 
they  are  just  as  unlikely  to  compete  with  us  in  our  markets 
as  we  are  to  compete  with  Newcastle  in  supplying  London 
with  coal. 

Under  the  construction,  therefore,  which  Senators  give  to 
the  bill,  I  am  satisfied  its  operation  would  be  as  beneficial  to 
us  as  to  the  states  with  which  we  have  reciprocity  treaties. 
But  I  contend  that  these  treaties  will  not  be  affected  by  this 
arrangement.  If  I  am  mistaken,  the  privileges  we  confer 
will  also  be  acquired  by  us,  and  we  cannot,  in  any  event,  be 
losers. 

Let  me  now  turn  to  considerations  which  directly  concern 
the  commercial  intercourse  of  Canada  and  the  United  States. 

In  order  to  understand  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  see  what  Canada  is,  and  what  she  has 
done  for  us  in  the  removal  of  restrictions  upon  our  com- 
merce with  her. 

The  population  of  Canada  (I  use  a  general  term,  as  the 
two  provinces  are  now  united)  is  \^5'^T^5^  souls,  or,  in 
round  numbers,  a  million  and  a  half.  With  less  variety  and 
fertility  of  soil  than  the  United  States,  a  more  rigorous  cli- 
mate, and  with  colonial  restrictions  calculated,  under  the 
most  favorable  view  of  the  subject,   to  impede  the  develop- 


890 


SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 


ment  of  her  resources,  to  shackle  the  operations  of  industry, 
and  to  abridge  the  freedom  of  individual  enterprise,  which 
is  always  the  most  powerful  stimulus  to  exertion,  it  is  not 
to  be  expected  that  her  progress  will  keep  pace  with  our  own 
in  population  or  in  social  and  physical  improvement.  The 
policy  of  Great  Britain  has,  within  a  few  years,  undergone 
some  important  changes,  favorable  to  her  in  a  commercial 
and  political  yiew.  Canada,  it  is  true,  has  lost  some  exclu- 
sive privileges  by  a  relaxation  of  the  colonial  system  of  the 
mother-country,  but  the  latter  has  extended  to  her  some  new 
facilities,  by  surrendering  the  control  of  the  custom-house, 
so  far  as  respects  the  imposition  of  duties  ;  and  she  has  also 
conceded  the  principle  of  the  responsibility  of  ministers 
which  exists  at  home,  so  that  when  the  Governor  is  not  sus- 
tained in  his  policy  by  the  Provincial  Parliament,  he  is 
bound  to  change  his  advisers,  or,  in  other  words,  his  Execu- 
tive Council,  which  may  be'  considered  as  the  ministry  of  the 
colony.  The  Canadian  government  is  thus  assimilated  to 
that  of  Great  Britain  in  the  essential  feature  of  its  responsi- 
bility to  the  popular  voice,  —  a  concession  which  has  been 
gained  after  a  long  and  patient  struggle  on  the  part  of  a  few 
able  and  patriotic  men  in  Canada. 

Almost  contemporaneous  with  this  fundamental  change  in 
the  political  administration  of  the  affairs  of  Canada  was  an- 
other of  equal  importance  in  respect  to  her  commercial  inde- 
pendence. In  1846,  an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed  giv- 
ing the  legislative  authority  of  the  British  colonies  the  right 
to  regulate  their  own  duties  of  customs  in  respect  to  British 
as  well  as  foreign  products.  At  that  time  there  were  no 
duties  imposed  by  British  acts  on  British  goods  imported 
into  Canada,  although  there  were  duties  imposed  by  such 
acts  on  foreign  goods ;  but  there  were  acts  of  the  Canadian 
legislature,  made  for  revenue,  imposing  additional  or  cumu- 
lative duties  on  foreign  goods,  and  a  duty  of  five  per  cent, 
on  British  goods.  There  was  also  an  act  of  Parliament 
declaring  that  no  goods  should,  "  upon  importation  into  any 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA. 


891 


of  the  British  possessions  in  America,  he  deemed  to  be  of 
the  growth,  production,  or  manufacture  of  the  United  King- 
dom, unless  imported  from  the  United  Kingdom." 

The  effect  of  this  condition  of  the  law  was  to  prevent  the 
importation  of  British  goods  into  Canada  through  the  United 
States,  and  to  impose  on  the  productions  of  the  United 
States  and  other  countries  duties  which  were  protective  as 
to  those  of  Great  Britain  and  Canada. 

As  early  as  1848  the  duty  on  the  importation  of  wheat 
and  flour,  of  the  growth  of  the  United  States,  going  through 
Canada  to  the  United  Kingdom,  w^as  reduced  to  three  shil- 
lings provincial  duty,  the  quarter  of  eight  bushels,  and  one 
shilling  British  duty,  without  reference  to  the  sliding-scale, 
by  which  the  importation  of  breadstuffs  from  other  countries 
was  regulated.  The  consequence  was,  a  large  importation 
of  wheat  and  flour  from  the  United  States  into  England 
through  Canada. 

The  corn-laws  being  repealed,  Canada  loses  this  advantage, 
—  the  advantage  of  being  a  carrier  for  us,  —  and  it  is  now 
as  beneficial  to  export  Canadian  wheat  to  England  through 
the  United  States  (the  expense  being  equal)  as  direct  from 
Canada.  In  other  words,  the  wheat  of  Canada  and  the 
United  States  has  equal  advantages  in  the  British  market. 

In  1847,  the  Parliament  of  Canada,  acting  under  the 
authority  granted  by  the  imperial  government,  repealed  the 
differential  duties,  and  the  new  table  or  tariff  of  duties  then 
enacted  applies  equally  to  goods  of  all  kinds,  whether  com- 
ing from  England  or  the  United  States.  We  are,  in  this  re- 
spect, placed  on  the  footing  of  the  mother-country. 

This  equality  was  effected  by  a  double  operation  of  law: 
first,  by  reducing  the  rate  of  duty  on  goods  of  the  United 
States  ;  and,  secondly,  by  increasing  the  rate  on  British 
goods,  thus  bringing  both  to  the  same  standard  or  scale. 
There  can  be  no  better  evidence  of  the  liberality  of  the  Ca- 
nadians, and  of  their  earnest  desire  to  put  their  commercial 
intercourse  with  us  on  the  most  friendly  footing. 


SQ2  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

The  consequence  of  this  change  of  the  law  has  been  to 
create  a  considerable  importation  of  British  and  foreign 
goods  into  Canada  through  the  United  States,  and  also  to 
cause  a  large  importation  of  the  productions  of  the  United 
States  into  Canada  for  consumption.  The  cotton  fabrics  of 
Lowell  are  received  on  the  same  terms  as  those  of  Manches- 
ter. The  same  remark  is  true  of  many  other  products  of 
our  industry,  of  which  we  carry  large  quantities  into  Canada 
for  consumption.  The  value  of  our  productions  annually 
introduced  into  Canada,  under  these  new  provisions  of  law, 
is  stated,  on  high  authority,  to  amount  to  more  than  two 
millions  of  dollars.  It  is  natural  that  the  Canadians  should 
desire  to  send  their  produce  to  New  York  and  Boston,  to 
meet  the  trade  which  has  thus  been  opened  to  us,  —  that 
they,  having  put  this  trade  upon  the  most  liberal  footing  in 
respect  to  us,  should  wish  to  export,  on  equal  terms,  such 
means  of  payment  as  they  possess  in  the  products  of  their 
own  labor. 

Will  the  terms  of  exchange  —  perfect  equality  -^pro- 
posed by  the  bill  be  disadvantageous  to  us  ?  I  propose  to 
consider  this  question  somewhat  in  detail,  although  it  would 
seem  but  fair  that  the  liberality  which  has  been  manifested 
by  Canada  toward  us  —  a  liberality  by  which  we  have 
greatly  profited,  a  liberality  voluntarily  extended  to  us,  with- 
out equivalent  —  should  be  reciprocated,  without  stopping 
to  weigh,  with  over  -  scrupulous  exactness,  the  precise  bal- 
ance of  advantages   and  benefits. 

In  the  first  place,  I  believe  it  will  be  apparent,  by  look- 
ing at  the  list  of  enumerated  articles  which  are  proposed  to 
be  mutually  received  free  of  duty,  that  ashes,  flour,  and  lum- 
ber are  the  only  ones  ever  likely  to  be  brought  into  the 
markets  of  the  United  States  in  considerable  quantities. 
Ashes  we  want,  and  at  the  cheapest  price.  In  respect  to 
lumber,  there  is  nothing  to  be  apprehended.  We  shall  un- 
questionably receive  some  lumber  in  New  York,  but  I  be- 
lieve our  timber  districts  do  not  fear  the  competition.     Be- 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  gQS 

sides,  it  will  come  to  us  chiefly  in  the  form  of  saw-logs  for 
manufacture.  New  York  is  almost  the  only  State  this 
competition  can  affect ;  and  if  there  is  any  risk,  we  are  will- 
ing to  take  it,  in  consideration  of  the  general  advantage  and 
convenience  the  measure  promises  to  confer.  It  was  appre- 
hended by  our  friends  in  Maine,  that  their  interests  might 
be  injuriously  affected  in  this  respect.  But  the  bill  is 
so  shaped  as  to  avoid  all  interference  with  them.  It  ap- 
plies only  to  the  direct  trade  with  Canada.  Articles  com-, 
ing  through  New  Brunswick  or  the  other  British  provinces 
will  continue  on  the  old  footing.  The  lumber  interest  in 
Maine,  therefore,  will  not  be  touched  by  the  bill  ;  and  in  all 
other  respects  that  State  will  in  all  probability  be  as  much 
benefited  by  it  as  any  other.  When  the  railway  between 
Portland  and  Montreal  is  completed,  the  free  commerce 
secured  by  the  bill  must  be  of  the  greatest  advantage. 

Flour,  in  fact,  is  the  only  Canadian  product  likely  to  come 
into  competition  with  our  own.  Of  all  the  others  —  ani- 
mals, hides,  cheese,  meats,  &c.  —  we  shall  export  more 
largely  into  Canada  than  she  will  export  into  the  United 
States.  The  same  remark  is  applicable  to  corn,  and  indeed 
to  most  if  not  all  the  breadstuflf's,  except  wheat. 

It  is  possible  that  in  certain  years  — years  of  scanty 
production  in  the  United  States,  provided  they  are  years  of 
abundance  in  Canada  —  we  may  receive  some  wheat  from 
her.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  the  amount  will  even  in 
those  years  (which  are  very  unlikely  to  occur)  be  sufficient 
to  influence  prices  in  the  United  States  in  a  perceptible  de- 
gree. If  the  importation,  however,  shall  in  such  extraordi- 
nary cases  prevent  the  price  of  grain  from  becoming  extrava- 
gantly high,  it  will  be  a  public  benefit,  by  relieving  the  poor 
from  the  necessity  of  eating  dear  bread.  In  years  of  ordi- 
nary abundance  I  do  not  believe  prices  in  the  United  States 
will  be  at  all  affected  by  the  importation  of  wheat  from  Canada. 
The  production  of  wheat  in  the  United  States  yields  a  sur- 
plus.    Whenever  prices  abroad  are  sufficient  to  sustain  ex- 

•50 


394.  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

portation,  our  wheat  finds  its  way  to  foreign  markets ;  and 
in  these  cases  it  is  the  price  in  those  markets  which  fixes 
the  price  at  home.  I  beHeve  it  may  be  stated  as  a  principle 
that  the  price  of  a  product,  which  is  exported  in  any  con- 
siderable quantity,  is  regulated  in  the  markets  of  the 
exporting  country  by  the  price  in  the  markets  of  the  coun- 
try to  which  the  export  is  made.  Our  own  experience 
proves  the  truth  of  this  proposition.  In  1847,  when  we 
were  exporting  breadstuffs,  the  price  of  flour  in  New  York, 
the  chief  port  of  exportation,  rose  and  fell  with  the  fluc- 
tuations of  price  in  the  British  markets  with  as  much  certain- 
ty as  the  mercurial  column  in  the  thermometer  rises  and 
falls  with  the  variations  of  external  temperature.  This  fact 
should  relieve  us  from  all  apprehension  as  to  the  influence  of 
this  bill  on  competition  with  Canada  in  the  production  of 
wheat.  She  may  send  her  flour  to  foreign  markets  now, 
either  by  the  St.  Lawrence,  or  through  the  United  States,  in 
bond,  under  the  act  of  1846,  allowing  a  drawback  of  duties 
in  certain  cases.  It  enters  into  competition  with  ours  in 
those  markets  now.  The  bill  gives  no  new  facility  or  advan- 
tage in  this  respect,  except  to  relieve  her  from  custom-house 
formalities.  I  hold,  then,  that  the  wheat  of  Canada  can  only 
have  an  influence  on  the  price  in  the  United  States  in  very 
extraordinary  years,  not  likely  to  occur,  and  in  years  of 
exportation,  by  competition  with  us  in  the  foreign  market, 
and  that,  in  the  latter  respect,  this  influence  is  as  sensibly  felt 
now  as  it  would  be  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  These 
considerations  become  the  more  significant,  if  it  be  true,  as 
I  suppose,  that  wheat  is  henceforth  to  be  one  of  our  regular 
exports. 

What,  then,  are  the  advantages  to  be  expected  from  the 
proposed  free  interchange  of  products'?  The  first  is,  to 
relieve  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries,  and  especially  those 
on  the  frontier,  from  the  inconvenience  of  the  custom-house 
in  respect  to  necessaries  of  common  production  and  daily 
use.     The  next  is,  to  enable  the  Canadians  to  export  their 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA.  395 

produce  through  the  United  States  to  foreign  markets  with- 
out paying  duty  at  the  frontier,  and  with  a  deduction  of  two 
and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  drawback  at  the  place  of  expor- 
tation. The  custom-house  formalities  seem  to  have  been  a 
great  obstacle  to  the  use  of  our  canals  and  internal  channels 
of  communication  by  the  Canadians.  From  December  1, 
1846,  to  July  1,  1847,  we  received  from  all  the  British 
North  American  Provinces  9^9  bushels  of  grain  of  all  kinds, 
and  no  flour,  while  we  sent  them  more  than  two  millions  of 
bushels  of  wheat  during  the  year.  During  the  previous  five 
months  we  received  from  all  the  rest  of  the  world  309  bushels 
of  wheat  and  54  cwt.  of  flour,  —  equal  to  27  barrels.  The 
last  year  the  Canadians  have  used  our  canals  more  exten- 
sively. The  returns  are  not  yet  printed,  but  I  understand 
that  at  least  7^^?^^^  barrels  of  flour  have  been  exported 
through  the  United  States.  Whether  the  experiment  will 
succeed  remains  to  be  seen. 

Mr.  Clarke.     Will  the  Senator  from  New  York  state  where  he 
obtained  this  information  ? 

I  have  ascertained  the  fact  from  some  statistical  state- 
ments published  in  a  newspaper  at  Oswego,  containing  the 
transactions  at  the  collector's  office.  This  information  is 
given  in  an  official  form  in  the  annual  report  on  commerce 
and  navigation  received  yesterday ;  but  I  have  not  been  able 
to  examine  it.  From  the  source  I  have  before  referred  to, 
I  learn  that  50,000  barrels  of  flour  were  received  at  Os- 
wego.    At  Buffalo  the  amount  was  probably  less. 

The  bill  will  undoubtedly  lead  to  a  free  interchange  of 
products  among  the  frontier  inhabitants.  If,  in  the  course 
of  these  exchanges,  we  receive  any  Canada  wheat  for  con- 
sumption, it  must  be  in  the  few  individual  cases  in  which  the 
sellers  of  our  products  to  the-  Canadians  are  able  to  con- 
sume it  more  freely.  To  a  very  limited  extent  it  may  pos- 
sibly reach  a  new  class  of  consumers,  who  will  become  ex- 
porters on  a  small  scale,  under  this  bill.  For  instance,  one 
of  our  frontier  inhabitants  who,  under  the  proposed  arrange- 


396  SPEECHES  m  the  senate. 

meiit,  can  carry  half  a  dozen  sheep  into  Canada  without 
paying  the  duty  of  forty  cents  a  head  now  exacted  by  the 
Canadian  tariff,  and  bring  back  as  many  bushels  of  wheat 
without  paying  the  twenty  per  cent,  duty  imposed  by  our 
tariff,  will  save  between  three  and  four  dollars  in  an  exchange 
of  products  of  the  value  of  twelve  or  thirteen  dollars, — 
a  monstrous  tax !  —  and  he  may  thus  be  enabled  to  eat 
wheat  bread  for  a  while,  instead  of  living  exclusively  on 
the  coarser  breadstuffs.  This  must  be  the  only  effect  in 
ordinary  years,  when  we  produce  more  wheat  than  we  re- 
quire for  our  own  consumption.  We  can  take  none  from 
other  countries,  unless  we  consume  it  more  freely  ;  and  our 
increased  consumption  under  this  bill  must  not  only  be  ex- 
tremely limited,  but  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to  interfere  with 
our  ow^n  production.  But  these  are  very  small  matters, 
hardly  worthy  to  be  taken  into  the  account  in  an  estimate 
of  large  transactions. 

Let  me  now  test  the  truth  of  my  position  —  that  we 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  competition  with  Canada  in 
w^heat-growing  —  by  a  resort  to  arithmetical  demonstrations. 
The  population  of  Canada  is  about  half  the  population  of 
New  York.  That  part  of  the  province  which  was  once 
politically  known  as  Upper  Canada,  and  which,  for  distinc- 
tion, I  shall  still  call  so,  is  the  wheat-growing  region.  The 
Lower  portion  does  not  produce  enough  for  its  own  consump- 
tion. It  always  draws  largely  upon  the  Upper.  The  least 
failure  of  the  crops  in  the  Lower  would  be  sure  to  absorb 
the  whole  surplus  of  the  Upper.  If  there  were  any  just 
ground  of  apprehension  in  respect  to  our  wheat-growing  dis- 
tricts, looking  to  general  considerations,  it  would  be  removed 
by  the  custom-house  statistics  of  Canada  for  the  year 
184t7,  —  the  great  year  of  exportation  for  American  bread- 
stuffs,  by  reason  of  the  famine  in  Europe.  I  take  for  illusr 
tration  the  most  unfavorable  year  for  my  purpose,  —  the 
year  in  which,  from  unusual  causes,  the  export  of  wheat  by 
Canada  was  greatest.     I  do  so  that  those  from  whom  I  dif- 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  39^ 

fer  may  have  every  advantage  they  can  ask  in  the  argument. 
The  quantity  of  flour  imported  in  that  year  into  Canada 
was  about  84,000  barrels,  and  the  quantity  exported  about 
676,000  ;  the  quantity  of  wheat  imported  562,000  bushels, 
and  the  quantity  exported  668,000  bushels.  The  imports, 
of  course,  were  from  the  United  States.  The  excess  of 
exports  over  imports  was  59^,000  barrels  of  flour,  and 
106,000  bushels  of  wheat.  This  entire  export  was  probably 
to  Great  Britain,  her  American  islands,  and  her  Atlantic 
provinces,  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick.  Notwithstand- 
ing this  export  of  flour  from  Canada,  ^ew  Brunswick  re- 
ceived from  us,  in  the  same  year,  over  100,000  barrels 
of  flour,  and  Nova  Scotia  nearly  as  much  more. 

The  result  of  my  inquiries  is,  that  in  ordinary  years  the 
upper  portion  of  Canada  produces  a  surplus  of  about  2,000,- 
000  bushels  of  wheat,  and  that  a  considerable  part  of  this 
surplus  is  consumed  by  the  lower  portion,  including  Quebec 
and  Montreal,  and  the  demands  for  their  shipping.  In  1847 
Canada  produced  4,560,967  bushels  of  wheat,  and  imported 
982,468  bushels,  (including  flour,  and  estimating  one  barrel 
of  flour  to  be  equal  to  five  bushels  of  wheat,)  making  an 
aggregate  of  5,548,485  bushels  produced  and  imported.  In 
the  same  year  she  exported  4,047,866  bushels,  making  a 
balance  of  1,496,069  bushels  consumed  at  home.  This  is  less 
than  a  bushel  for  each  inhabitant,  —  probably  not  more  than 
half  her  consumption  in  ordinary  years.  But  the  price  of 
wheat  being  extravagantly  high,  the  consumption  must  have 
been  greatly  diminished,  for  the  purpose  of  exportation,  by 
resorting  to  the  coarser  grains  for  domestic  use.  The  statis- 
tical tables  of  earlier  years  prove  the  export  of  1847  to  have 
been  extraordinarily  large.  From  1888  to  1848  the  annual 
export  varied  from  50,000  to  850,000  barrels ;  but  in  this  last 
amount  was  included  a  large  import  from  the  United  States. 
It  is  not  probable  that  her  export  is  essentially  different 
when  there  are  no  unusual  causes  to  stimulate  exportation. 
Taking  one  year  wdth  another,  and  deducting  from  the  entire 


398 


SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 


export  of  wheat  from  Canada  an  amount  equal  to  that  which 
we  send  to  her,  to  Nova  Scotia,  and  New  Brunswick,  and 
I  doubt  w^hether  there  will  be  much  of  a  balance  left.  In 
1847,  which  was  an  extraordinary  year,  while  Canada  only 
exported  3,064,898  bushels  of  wheat  over  her  imports,  we 
carried  into  the  British  North  American  Provinces  alone,  in 
the  same  year,  2,2*^9 fi^^  bushels.  While  Canada  produces 
less  than  three  bushels  of  wheat  for  each  inhabitant,  we  pro- 
duce more  than  five  and  a  half  bushels  for  each  inhabitant ; 
while  she  consumed  in  184*7  less  than  one  bushel  of  wheat 
for  each  inhabitant,  we  consumed  nearly  four  bushels  and 
a  half  for  each  inhabitant,  notwithstanding  the  temptation  of 
high  prices  to  export  and  to  consume  cheaper  breadstuffs ; 
while  her  entire  product  of  wheat  in  1847  was  four  mill- 
ions and  a  half  of  bushels,  ours  was  over  one  hundred 
and  fourteen  millions  of  bushels. 

Against  an  export  of  less,  than  six  hundred  thousand 
barrels  of  flour  from  Canada  in  1847,  (her  excess  over 
imports,)  we  exported  nearly  four  and  a  half  millions  of 
barrels;  and  against  an  export  of  one  hundred  thousand 
bushels  of  wheat  from  Canada,  (excess  over  imports,)  we 
exported  nearly  four  millions  four  hundred  thousand  bushels. 
In  the  same  year  we  exported  twenty  million  bushels  of 
Indian  corn  and  meal,  while  she  exported  none.  The  idea 
that  a  million  and  a  half  of  people,  about  half  the  population 
of  New  York,  with  a  soil  far  less  favorable  to  the  growth 
of  wheat  than  our  own,  can  successfully  compete  with  us 
either  in  the  foreign  or  the  domestic  market,  and  injuriously 
affect  production  with  us,  with  twenty  millions  of  people, 
seems  to  me  a  very  idle  apprehension.  It  has  been  stated, 
on  high  authority,  that  the  entire  trade  of  the  British  North 
American  colonies,  with  three  millions  of  people,  does  not 
equal  that  of  Connecticut,  with  only  three  hundred  thousand 
inhabitants.  The  more  numerous,  active,  and  enterprising 
must  always  have  the  advantage  in  exchanging  on  equal 
terms.     The  very  fact  that  we  send  into  New  Brunswick 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA.  399 

every  year  at  least  one  hundred  thousand  barrels  of  flour, 
and  probably  as  large  an  amount  into  Nova  Scotia,  seems 
to  indicate  that  we  might  enter  into  successful  competition 
with  Upper  in  supplying  Lower  Canada,  if  all  duties  were 
to  be  removed.  At  least  our  surpluses  will,  to  some  extent, 
meet  there. 

Looking  to  the  wheat  culture  alone,  therefore,  I  should 
have  no  fears.  But  if  we  consider  the  subject  in  connection 
with  the  export  of  cattle,  corn,  salted  meats,  and  other 
articles,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  ground  to  apprehend 
that  we  shall  be  losers.  We  must  be  gainers.  Large 
quantities  of  cattle  and  corn  are  now  exported  to  Canada, 
with  a  specific  duty,  equal  to  about  twenty  per  cent,  against 
them.  We  sent  into  Canada  in  1844  thirteen  thousand  bar- 
rels of  pork,  and  in  1847  about  the  same  quantity,  with  a 
specific  duty  of  one  dollar  and  twenty  cents  the  cwt.  against 
us.  The  removal  of  these  duties  cannot  but  have  a  most 
decided  influence  in  increasing  the  traffic  of  the  northwestern 
States  with  Canada. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  proposed  measure,  by  re- 
moving the  duties  on  the  enumerated  products,  will  destroy 
the  protection  which  those  duties  secure  to  our  agricultural 
industry.  The  answer  to  this  suggestion  is,  that  the  pro- 
posed arrangement  is  founded  upon  a  mutual  abolition  of 
duties,  and  that  the  protection  extended  to  like  articles  of 
the  production  of  Canada  will  also  be  removed.  There 
can  be  no  necessity  of  protecting  our  products  against 
Canada,  when  she  ceases  to  protect  her  products  against  us. 
But  the  measure  will,  in  truth,  be  of  infinite  advantage  to 
our  agriculture.  Canada  sends  few  products  to  us ;  we 
send  many  to  her.  We  produce  corn,  which  she  needs,  and 
which  she  cannot  raise  in  sufficient  quantity  for  her  own  con- 
sumption. Her  winters  are  longer  than  ours ;  and,  as  the 
expense  of  keeping  cattle  from  autumn  to  spring  is  greater,  she 
will  always  rely  on  us  for  her  supplies,  both  for  the  slaughter- 
house and  for  farming  purposes.     There  is  now  a  duty  of 


400  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

$4.40  a  head  on  cows,  and  seven  dollars  a  head  on  oxen, 
on  importation  into  Canada.  The  removal  of  these  duties 
will  be  a  great  advantage  to  us.  In  short,  under  all  its 
aspects,  this  measure  will,  on  examination,  he  admitted  to  be 
of  infinite  benefit  to  our  agriculture.  It  will,  in  most  cases, 
remove  duties  on  our  products,  which  operate  as  a  direct 
discouragement  to  their  exportation,  while  the  removal  of 
the  duties  on  the  like  articles  of  the  production  of  Canada 
cannot  affect  us,  as  those  duties  are  chiefly  on  products 
which  will  not  come  into  competition  with  ours,  and  are 
therefore  not  protective.  In  a  word,  I  can  fancy  no  meas- 
ure more  likely  to  be  beneficial  to  our  agriculture  than  this. 
The  highest  species  of  protection  to  industry  is  that  which 
opens  new  markets  for  its  products.  In  this  point  of  view 
this  measure  is  eminently  protective ;  it  is  just,  legitimate, 
effective  protection ;  and  if  gentlemen  desire  (as  I  have  no 
doubt  they  do)  to  advance  the  agricultural  interests  of  the 
country,  they  ought  to  sustain  it. 

Let  me  now  state  a  few  further  statistical  facts  to  the  Sen- 
ate, for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  little  influence  any  in- 
creased interchange  of  products  with  Canada  under  this 
bill  is  likely  to  have  on  our  aggregate  exchanges  with 
foreign  countries. 

The  duties  on  merchandise  collected  in  all  the  inland 
frontier  districts,  commencing  at  Burlington,  on  Lake  Cham- 
plain,  and  terminating  at  Chicago,  on  Lake  Michigan,  are 
as  follows:  For  1845,  $57,818.55;  for  1846,  $66,828.80; 
for  1847,  $66,019.80;— making  an  average  of  $68,555.71 
per  annum  for  the  three  years. 

Estimating  the  rate  of  duty  at  88^  per  cent.,  the  whole 
value  of  the  articles  imported  from  Canada  into  the  United 
States,  and  paying  duty  at  the  custom-houses,  averages 
$190,667.13  per  annum.  A  portion  of  the  duties  was,  in 
all  probability,  refunded  in  1847,  under  the  law  allowing  a 
drawback  on  reexportation  of  the  articles  on  which  the 
duties  were  paid.     I  learn  that  the  amount  of  goods    en- 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  401 

tered  at  Buffalo  and  Oswego  for  the  benefit  of  drawback 
was  greatly  increased  during  the  last  year,  as  the  returns, 
when  we  receive  them,  will  undoubtedly  show ;  but  the  amount 
refunded  will  be  proportionably  increased,  so  that  the  treas- 
ury will  not  be  affected  by  the  augmented  collections  from 
this  cause. 

Our  entire  imports  from  the  British  North  American 
colonies  in  1845  were  of  the  value  of  about  two  millions  of 
dollars.  Of  this  amount  more  than  nine  hundred  thousand 
dollars  consisted  of  gold  and  silver,  and  more  than  eleven 
hundred  thousand,  including  specie,  were  free  of  duty.  The 
remaining  nine  hundred  thousand  dollars  are  to  be  divided 
between  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  and  New  Brunswick;  and 
from  the  nature  of  the  articles  it  is  manifest  that  the  quantity 
received  from  Canada  was  but  a  small  portion  of  the  amount. 
For  instance,  fish  constituted  nearly  four  hundred  thousand 
dollars  of  the  nine  hundred  thousand ;  and  this  came  from  the 
Atlantic  provinces.  The  year  1847  gives  nearly  the  same 
aggregate  result.  Our  entire  imports  from  all  the  British 
North  American  colonies  constitute  a  very  inconsiderable 
part  of  our  commercial  transactions  with  foreign  states ; 
and  no  change  we  can  make  in  our  intercourse  with  Canada* 
can  have  any  material  influence  upon  them. 

Notwithstanding  this  small  import  from  the  British  North^ 
American  colonies,  our  commercial  intercourse  with  them, 
including  Canada,  is  as  beneficial  for  its  extent  as  that  with 
any  portion  of  the  world.  We  sent  into  them,  in  1847,  prod- 
ucts of  the  value  of  nearly  eight  millions  of  dollars, — 
about  five  million  eight  hundred  thousand  domestic,  and 
over  two  millions  foreign.  The  foreign  exports  were  proba- 
bly, to  a  great  extent,  sent  through  the  United  States  on 
foreign  account.  Our  imports  directly  from  those  colonies, 
the  same  year,  were  of  the  value  of  about  two  millions  and 
a  quarter.  The  remaining  five  millions  and  a  half  (deduct- 
ing some  hundred  thousand  on  foreign  account)  must  have 
been  paid  by  bills  on  England.     A  large   portion    of  our 

51 


40£       '  SPEECHES.  IN  THE   SENATE. 

exports  into  Canada  is  probably  paid  for  in  this  way.  She 
sends  her  lumber  and  flour  to  England,  and  with  the  pro- 
ceeds pays  us  the  excess  of  her  imports  from  us  over  her 
exports  to  us. 

But  it  is  only  a  small  portion  even  of  these  exchanges 
which  this  bill  can  affect.  It  is  only  that  portion  which  em- 
braces the  enumerated  articles.  Now,  I  have  ascertained 
that  in  184^7  we  did  not  import  of  those  articles  from  all 
the  British  North  American  colonies  an  amount  equal  in 
value  to  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  From  Canada  it 
must  have  been  quite  inconsiderable.  The  intercourse  this 
bill  is  destined  to  affect  is,  therefore,  not  only  limited  in  its 
extent,  but  it  is  essentially  local  in  its  character.  No  appre- 
hension is  expressed  in  any  quarter  as  to  its  practical  opera- 
tion, except  as  respects  competition  in  the  production  of 
wheat.  I  trust  I  have  show^n  that  even  this  apprehension  is 
without  foundation.  But  if  it  were  not  so,  the  States  on 
the  frontier  are  those  most  likely  to  feel  the  influence  of  the 
competition.  Ohio  is  the  largest  wheat-growing  State  in 
the  Union.  She  produces  a  little  less  than  seventeen  mill- 
ions of  bushels,  —  nearly  four  times  as  much  as  Canada. 
Next  in  order  is  New  York,  with  a  product  of  fourteen 
millions  and  a  half  of  bushels,  —  more  than  three  times  as 
much  as  Canada.  Michigan,  in  1847,  with  a  population 
not  one  fourth  of  that  of  Canada,  produced  nearly  twice  as 
many  bushels  of  wheat.  These  are  the  States  which  should 
object  to  the  free  exchange  proposed  by  the  bill,  if  objection 
could  reasonably  be  made  in  any  quarter ;  and  yet  they  are 
the  very  States  in  which  the  measure  is  most  earnestly 
desired.  It  is,  in  truth,  a  measure  which  exclusively  con- 
cerns the  inhabitants  of  the  frontier ;  and  I  earnestly  hope 
Senators  representing  States  which  are  far  removed  from  it, 
and  which  cannot  be  affected  by  the  proposed  measure,  will 
consent  that  the  wishes  of  the  parties  immediately  inter- 
ested shall  furnish  the  rule  of  their  intercourse  with  each 
other. 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA.  403 

I  have  endeavored  to  show,  Mr.  President,  that  the  Cana- 
dian government  has  acted  with  great  liberality  towards  us  ; 
and  that  by  reciprocally  removing  the  duties  on  the  agri- 
cultural productions  of  both  countries,  enumerated  in  this 
bill,  we  do  no.  injury  to  any  interest,  but  create  a  mutual 
benefit. 

I  was  very  much  surprised  to  hear  the  Senator  from 
Maryland  ^  say  that  there  was  no  reciprocity  in  the  proposed 
arrangement ;  that  "  the  bill  is  delusive.  If  it  pass,  not  a 
dollar's  worth  of  any  of  these  products  will  be  exported 
from  the  United  States  to  Canada."  The  Senator  could 
not  have  examined  this  subject  with  his  accustomed  care. 
Let  me  convince  him  that  he  has  not  done  so.  In  1847 
we  exported  to  Canada  88,983  barrels  of  flour,  and  562,558 
bushels  of  wheat,  with  a  duty  of  about  seven  and  a  half 
cents  a  bushel  on  the  importation  ;  we  also  sent  her  64f,8yS 
bushels  of  other  grains. 

Mr.  Pearce.  I  will  thank  the  Senator  to  state  whence  he  derives 
his  information.     I  do  not  find  it  in  the  public  documents. 

I  have  obtained  the  information  from  the  custom-house 
statistics  of  Canada,  to  which  I  have  referred,  furnished  at 
my  request  by  the  officers  of  the  Canadian  government. 

We  also  sent  into  Canada  943,280  pounds  of  tallow, 
with  a  duty  of  one  per  cent,  (the  very  large  export  prob- 
ably resulting  from  the  very  low  duty)  ;  28,000  pounds  of 
butter,  with  a  duty  of  $1.50  per  cwt.;  1458  oxen,  with  a 
duty  of  $7  a  head;  14,701  bushels  of  potatoes,  with  a  duty 
of  ten  per  cent.;  49,099  bushels  of  apples,  with  a  duty  oJf 
ten  cetits  per  bushel ;  16,809  barrels  of  salted  meats,  chiefly 
pork,  with  a  duty  of  $1.20  the  cwt. 

The  duty  on  sheep  is  nearly  prohibitory.  It  is,  at  ordi- 
nary prices,  forty  per  cent.  Nearly  the  same  may  be  said 
of  the  duty  on  most  other  animals.  Now,  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  say,  that  the  export  of  most  of  the  enumerated  products 

1  Mr.  Pearce. 


404  SPEECHES  IN   THE    SENATE. 

may  be  very  greatly  increased  by  the  removal  of  the  duties 
upon  them ;  and  I  am  satisfied  that  the  Senator  from  Mary- 
land will  find,  on  a  more  careful  examination  of  the  subject, 
that  he  has  entirely  misapprehended  the  operation  of  the  bill 
upon  the  agricultural  interest  of  the  country. 

And  now  I  wish  to  notice,  in  the  briefest  manner,  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont.^  The 
effect  of  the  amendment,  if  adopted,  must  be  to  defeat  the 
measure.  It  cannot  be  accepted  by  Canada.  The  articles 
the  amendment  proposes  to  make  reciprocally  free  are  hats, 
boots,  shoes,  and  other  manufactures  of  leather ;  cotton  and 
woollen  fabrics.  These  are  all  manufactured  articles.  The 
bill  contemplates  a  free  exchange  of  certain  agricultural  prod- 
ucts. The  amendment  changes  the  whole  character  of  the 
bill.  It  extends  to  a  class  of  imports  on  which  Canada  must 
rely  for  revenue.  It  would  be  just  as  unreasonable  in  her 
to  ask  us  to  receive  her  furs  free  of  duty. 

But  the  duties  on  these  articles,  though  revenue  duties, 
are  exceedingly  moderate.  They  come  within  the  range  of 
those  proposed  by  General  Hamilton  in  his  celebrated  re- 
port on  manufactures,  made  shortly  after  the  organization 
of  the  Federal  government.  The  duty  on  hats  is  7|  per 
cent. ;  on  boots,  shoes,  and  manufactures  of  leather  of  all 
kinds,  an  average  duty,  I  think,  not  exceeding  10  per  cent. ; 
and  on  manufactures  of  cotton  and  wool,  7f  per  cent.  These 
duties  are  not  only  moderate,  but  low  ;  and  without  refer- 
ence to  the  departure  of  the  amendment  from  the  general 
policy  of  the  bill,  it  is  unreasonable  to  ask  their  abolition. 

Besides,  the  same  duties  are  imposed  on  like  products  of 
British  manufacture.  The  mother-country  has  no  advantage 
over  us  in  this  respect  in  Canada,  and  we  ought  not  to  ask 
an  advantage  over  her. 

It  is  quite  manifest  that  the  amendment  must  defeat  the 
bill;  and  I  entreat  Senators  not  to  give  it  their  support. 
If  the  bill  is  not  acceptable  to  them,  I  trust  they  will,  at 

1  Mr.  Phelps. 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  405 

least,  consent  to  manifest  their  opposition  to  it  by  a  direct 
vote. 

I  now  come  to  an  objection  to  the  bill  which  I  consider  it 
proper  to  notice,  though  I  regret  to  be  under  the  necessity 
of  making  any  reference  to  it.  The  Senator  from  Virginia  ^ 
terms  this  bill  a  measure  "  of  quasi  annexation,  because  the 
advantages  which  are  urged  as  arising  from  it  seem  to  relate 
to  some  such  project  in  the  future."  Mr.  President,  if  this 
measure  had  any  such  object,  and  there  were  no  other  ground 
of  objection,  we  might  reasonably  count  upon  the  support 
of  the  Senator  from  Virginia.  It  is  but  four  years  since 
every  Democratic  vote  in  this  body  from  the  Northern,  North- 
eastern, and  Northwestern  States  was  cast  for  the  annexation 
of  Texas.  If  Canada  should  desire  to  unite  herself  to  us, 
are  we  not  to  expect  the  same  unanimity  among  our  Dem- 
ocratic friends  in  another  quarter  1  or  are  we  to  understand 
that  annexation  is  only  to  be  countenanced  when  it  can  be 
made  at  one  extremity  of  the  Union,  and  to  be  opposed  at 
the  other  %  —  that  even  freedom  of  intercourse  is  to  be  dis- 
couraged and  repelled,  because  it  may  by  possibility  lead  to 
such  a  result  in  the  future  %  I  hope  the  intimation  of  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  is  not  to  be  so  understood.  If  it  is, 
it  is  well  that  we  know  now  in  what  manner  our  cooperation 
in  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  acquisition  of  Florida  is 
likely  to  be  reciprocated. 

Mr.  Hunter.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  is  mistaken  if  he 
supposes  I  urged  this  view  of  the  bill  as  an  objection  to  it.  I  stated 
the  fact  without  comment  on  it,  or  intimating  either  an  approval  or 
condemnation  of  it.  I  said  that  such  must  be  its  purpose,  for  that  the 
best  arguments  urged  in  its  favor  seemed  to  be  based  upon  some  such 
prospect  in  the  future. 

I  am  aware  that  the  Senator  did  not  comment  upon  the 
intimation  he  made,  though  I  understood  him  to  make  it  by 
way  of  objection  to  the  bill.  But  I  am  happy  that  he  does 
not  wish   it  to  be  so   received.     While  on  this    subject,  I 

1  Mr.  Hunter. 


406  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

desire  to  say,  that,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns those  with  whom  this  measure  originated,  no  such 
design  was  even  imagined  until  it  was  suggested  hy  those 
to  whom  it  seems  to  be  unacceptable.  I  believe  (though 
I  am  not  sure)  this  proposition  came  originally  from  Can- 
ada,—  from  the  liberal  party  in  Canada,  —  though  it  was 
cordially  acquiesced  in  on  our  side  by  those  who  supposed 
they  had  a  direct  interest  in  it.  Among  the  first  by  whom 
it  was  publicly  suggested,  if  I  remember  right,  was  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  He  has  twice  recommended 
it ;  and  undoubtedly  because  he  regarded  it  as  a  commercial 
arrangement  which  would  be  beneficial  to  both  parties. 

I  know  personally  many  of  the  prominent  men  in  Canada. 
I  know  they  are  strongly  opposed  to  a  separation  from  the 
mother-country.  They  desire  union  with  England  first, 
independence  next,  annexation  to  the  United  States  last  of 
all.  They  desire  a  free  exchange  of  products  with  us,  be- 
cause they  believe  the  existing  restrictions  upon  our  commerce 
are  prejudicial  to  both  countries;  and  they  desire  nothing 
more.  What  the  feeling  is  with  the  great  body  of  the  peo- 
ple in  Canada,  I  have  no  means  of  knowing.  That  they 
desire  free  intercourse  with  us,  there  is  no  doubt.  Beyond 
that,  I  know  nothing  of  their  opinions  or  wishes. 

For  myself,  I  have  heretofore  spoken  freely  on  this  sub- 
ject. I  would  neither  be  forward  in  courting  the  annex- 
ation of  adjacent  states,  nor  backward  in  acceding  to  it.  I 
would  neither  make  overtures  nor  repel  them,  without  good 
cause.  I  believe  we  are  large  enough  for  all  the  purposes 
of  security  and  strength;  but  I  do  not  fear  further  extension, 
nor  would  I  decline  it  when  circumstances  render  it  con- 
venient to  ourselves  or  others. 

Mr.  President,  this  consideration  has  been  urged,  and 
urged  directly,  as  an  objection  to  commercial  freedom  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Canada.  I  have  recently 
heard  it  from  the  anti-liberal  party  in  Canada,  who  are  for 
new  restrictions  on  our  commerce.     They  are  in  favor  of 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  4^ 

existing"  restrictions,  as  well  as  new  ones,  upon  the  ground 
that  free  intercourse  may  lead  to  a  political  union  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States.  The  Board  of  Trade  in 
Montreal,  in  a  petition  to  the  Queen,  on  the  18th  December 
last,  prayed  'for  a  renewal  of  the  discriminating  duty  on 
f*  American  grain  in  favor  of  colonial  grain ;  and  one  of  the 
reasons  assigned  was,  that  the  recent  changes  in  the  commer- 
cial relations  of  Canada  had  led  to  "  a  growing  commercial 
intercourse  with  the  United  States,  giving  rise  to  an  opinion, 
which  is  daily  gaining  ground  on  both  sides  of  the  boundary 
line,  that  the  interests  of  the  two  countries,  under  the 
changed  policy  of  the  Imperial  government,  are  germane 
to  each  other,  and  under  that  system  must  sooner  or  later 
be  politically  interwoven." 

Whether  this  view  be  just  or  not,  I  do  not  believe  the 
result  is  to  be  defeated  in  either  of  the  modes  proposed,  — 
by  a  continuation  of  existing  restrictions,  or  by  the  impo- 
sition of  new  ones.  I  believe  the  tendency  of  such  measures 
will  be  to  hasten  and  to  consummate  the  very  end  they  are 
intended  to  defeat.  Let  us  see  if  it  be  not  so.  A  man  at 
Champlain,  New  York,  or  Swanton,  Vermont,  wishes  to  sell 
an  ox  to  his  neighbor  in  Canada,  living  in  sight  of  him,  and 
take  wheat  in  exchange.  On  making  his  entry  at  the  Cana- 
dian custom-house,  he  is  taxed  seven  dollars  on  the  impor- 
tation of  his  ox.  He  brings  back  thirty-five  bushels  of 
wheat,  at  one  dollar  a  bushel,  and,  on  entering  them  at  our 
custom-house,  he  is  taxed  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem^ 
(seven  more,) — fourteen  dollars  tax  to  the  two  governments 
for  the  privilege  of  exchanging  his  commodity  with  his 
neighbor,  separated  from  him  in  one  case  by  a  narrow  sheet 
of  water,  and  in  the  other  by  an  astronomical  line.  Now, 
I  venture  to  assert  that  these  impositions  will  not  long  be 
submitted  to  on  either  side ;  and  if  they  are  not  removed  by 
the  two  governments,  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries  will 
look  to  annexation  as  the  only  practicable  measure  of  relief. 
Sir,  a  liberal  policy  is  always  the  most  wise,  as  well  as  the 


408  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

most  just;  and  I  say  again,  that  the  people  of  the  two  coun- 
tries will  not  submit  to  such  a  system  as  I  have  described, 
—  a  system  executed  by  an  army  of  custom-house  officers 
on  each  side  of  the  boundary  line,  placed  there  to  enforce 
exactions  which  absolutely  prohibit  commercial  intercourse, 
or  to  fill  their  bags  of  plunder  out  of  the  hard  earnings  of 
the  frontier  inhabitants.  And  I  cannot  believe  that  those 
who  advocate  the  doctrines  of  free  trade  will  sustain  a  state 
of  things  so  utterly  at  variance  with  their  own  principles; 
that  they  will  be  found  acting  in  unison  with  the  anti-liberal 
party  in  Canada,  upholding  commercial  restrictions,  which 
do  no  good,  against  commercial  freedom,  which  works  no 
injury ;  throwing  impediments  in  the  paths  of  those  who  are 
marked  out  by  the  great  features  of  the  districts  they  inhabit 
for  friendly  intercourse,  and  creating  these  embarrassments 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  making  them  alien  to  each  other. 
Notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  the  Senator  from  Mary- 
land, there  is  another  consideration  in  favor  of  this  bill,  which 
I  consider  of  vital  importance  to  us.  We  have  earnestly 
desired,  since  the  American  Revolution,  the  free  navigation 
of  the  St.  Lawrence.  In  1826  it  became  the  subject  of 
diplomatic  correspondence  between  the  two  countries.  The 
discussion  exhibits  the  high  value  we  have  attached  to  this 
privilege.  Indeed  we  claimed  it  as  a  right;  and  it  was 
asserted  as  such  by  Mr.  Clay  in  a  letter  of  great  power  and 
eloquence.  The  right  was  not  admitted  by  Great  Britain, 
and  the  matter  was  dropped.  But  there  has  been  no  period 
when  we  would  not  have  been  willing  to  grant  an  equivalent 
for  a  privilege  in  which,  according  to  Mr.  Clay,  nine  States 
have  an  interest.  Canada  is  now  desirous  of  granting  it 
without  equivalent.  She  stands  ready  to  pass  a  bill  opening 
the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  to  our  vessels.  Her 
Parliament  is  in  session.  The  liberal  party,  which  is  now  in 
power,  is  about  to  bring  the  measure  forward;  and  I  am 
happy  to  say  that  Lord  Elgin,  the  Governor,  —  a  gentleman 
distinguished  for  an  enlightened  and  liberal  statesmanship,  — 


TRADE  WITH   CANADA.  409 

is  in  favor   of  the  measure.     Its  success  is  certain,  if  we 
do  not  decline  the  reciprocity  asked  for  by  this  bill. 

When  the  Senator  from  Maryland  said  that  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  St.  Lawrence  was  useless  to  us,  he  could  hardly 
have  been  aware  that  ship -canals  have  been  constructed 
around  the  falls  of  Niagara,  and  other  points  below,  to  con- 
nect the  great  lakes  with  the  Atlantic  Ocean  by  way  of  the 
St.  Lawrence,  and  that  vessels  of  three  hundred  and  fifty 
tons  pass  freely  through  these  internal  channels  of  commu- 
nication. During  the  last  summer,  two  of  our  revenue  ves- 
sels passed  from  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Ontario,  through  the 
St.  Lawrence,  to  the  Atlantic.  When  our  ships  can  go  to 
Quebec  by  sea  and  meet  vessels  from  our  northwestern 
States,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  large  quantities  of  the 
products  of  those  States  will  be  carried,  in  summer,  spring, 
and  autumn,  in  this  direction,  by  our  own  vessels,  to  Europe. 
If  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  predict- 
ing that  vessels  at  no  distant  day  will  be  laden  with  wheat 
in  Chicago,  Green  Bay,  Detroit,  and  Cleveland,  and  unlade 
in  Liverpool.  Ship-owners,  producers,  all  will  be  greatly 
benefited  by  this  free  commerce,  which  will  have  an  advan- 
tage in  avoiding  transshipment  between  the  point  of  embar- 
kation and  the  sea,  or  the  foreign  market.  If  the  result 
is  to  affect  in  any  way  producers  in  the  Middle  States,  as 
Kentucky  in  the  West,  and  Maryland  and  Virginia  on  the 
Atlantic,  it  will  be  to  relieve  them  from  competition  in  our 
own  markets  with  the  wheat-growers  of  Ohio,  Illinois, 
Michigan,  and  Wisconsin  ;  and  I  greatly  err  if  gentlemen 
from  the  wheat-growing  States  do  not  fiiid  themselves  acting 
in  direct  contravention  of  the  interests  of  their  constituents 
in  opposing  this  measure.  In  any  point  of  view  under 
which  the  subject  can  be  considered,  the  opening  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  will  be  of  incalculable  benefit.  It  is,  indeed,  the 
only  outlet  of  the  Northwest  to  the  sea  for  vessels  of  any 
magnitude,  —  the  only  outlet  of  this  kind  they  can  ever 
have ;  for,  with  all  the  facilities  for  internal  communication 

52 


410  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

New  York  possesses,  a  ship-canal  through  her  territory  is 
opposed  by  physical  obstacles  too  serious  to  be  overcome. 

I  believe  the  adoption  of  this  great  measure  —  the  free 
navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  —  depends  on  the  passage 
of  this  bill.  If  the  reciprocity  it  provides  for  is  refused,  we 
cannot  expect  that  Canada  will  grant  us  what  she  considers  as 
a  boon,  what  we  claim  as  a  right,  and  what  all  must  concede 
to  be  a  privilege  of  inestimable  value.  On  the  contrary,  if 
the  liberal  course  she  has  pursued  is  met  by  an  illiberal 
spirit  in  us,  I  fear  she  will  be  compelled,  in  self-defence,  to 
resort  to  her  old  system  of  differential  duties,  and  to  con- 
tinue the  restriction  on  navigation.  There  is  a  strong  party 
in  Canada  in  favor  of  this  course.  I  have  already  alluded 
to  the  anti-liberal  party.  I  have  quoted  their  recent  petition 
to  the  Queen,  in  favor  of  discriminating  duties  on  our  prod- 
ucts. And,  sir,  I  greatly  fear,  if  this  bill  is  defeated,  that 
we  shall  put  a  weapon  into  their  hands  to  be  wielded  to  our 
serious  annoyance  and  injury.  To  withhold,  therefore,  a  just 
measure  of  reciprocity  mutually  advantageous,  as  I  verily  be- 
lieve, to  both  parties,  would  not  only  be  exceedingly  narrow 
in  policy  on  our  part,* but,  like  all  selfishness,  it  would  defeat 
itself,  and  result  in  a  loss  of  benefits  we  already  enjoy. 
These  benefits,  as  I  have  already  shown,  are :  first,  equal 
duties  in  Canada  on  American  and  British  goods ;  and, 
second,  a  market  for  at  least  three  millions  of  dollars  in 
value  of  the  products  of  our  industry. 

Mr.  Dayton.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  ?  The 
statement  of  facts  he  makes  is  important;  and  I  desire  to  know  on 
what  authority  he  says  that  our  manufactured  articles  are  received  in 
Canada  on  the  same  terms  as  those  of  Great  Britain. 

I  State  it  on  the  authority  of  the  Canadian  tariff,  which  I 
shall  be  happy  to  show  the  Senator  from  New  Jersey; 
and  I  will  add,  that  large  quantities  of  our  manufactures 
are  carried  into  Canada  for  consumption,  —  iron  castings, 
coarse  cottons,  and  a  variety  of  articles  sent  from  the  New- 
England  States,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania.     To  these 


TRADE  WITH  CANADA.  411 

States  the  increased  intercourse  proposed  by  this  bill  will  be 
of  great  importance.  The  prospective  benefit  which  we 
should  reject  by  a  narrow  policy  is  the  free  navigation  of 
the  St.  Lawrence,  —  one  of  the  highest  prizes  offered  to  the 
commercial  enterprise  of  the  country  for  many  years.  It 
will  also  carry  with  it  the  application,  which  we  have  always 
contended  for,  of  a  principle  of  the  greatest  value  in  inter- 
national intercourse,  —  a  principle  generally  conceded  in  Eu- 
rope since  the  report  of  Baron  Von  Humboldt,  —  the  right 
of  riparian  states  to  an  outlet  to  the  sea  by  the  water-courses 
on  which  they  border.  These  seem  to  me  to  be  advantages 
which  far  outweigh  in  importance  any  considerations  of  pe- 
cuniary profit  to  be  drawn  from  a  close  computation  of  the 
number  of  bushels  of  wheat  which  may  be  reciprocally  re- 
ceived and  exported ;  though,  even  on  this  narrow  ground, 
I  trust  I  have  shown  that  we  are  not  likely  to  be  losers  by 
the  competition. 

There  is  another  view  of  the  subject,  which,  I  confess, 
weighs  greatly  with  me.  The  liberal  party  in  Canada  has 
been  struggling  for  years  to  obtain  the  measure  of  political 
and  commercial  freedom  to  which  they  believe  every  commu- 
nity of  men  to  be  fairly  entitled.  Commercial  freedom  they 
have  secured,  —  not  fully,  but  so  far  as  to  give  them  the 
regulation  of  the  impost ;  political  freedom,  so  far  as  to 
give  the  popular  voice  a  control  over  all  cardinal  subjects 
of  internal  administration  and  external  intercourse.  The 
first  use  they  have  made  of  this  partial  independence  of  the 
mother-country  is  to  tender  to  us  the  most  liberal  terms  of 
commercial  exchange.  They  have  extended  to  us  these  ben- 
efits without  equivalent.  We  have  enjoyed  them  for  nearly 
two  years  with  great  advantage.  They  now  ask  equality 
in  exchanging  a  few  agricultural  productions  common  to 
both  countries.  Sir,  I  should  deeply  regret  that  the  United 
States,  powerful  and  populous  as  they  are,  should  withhold 
from  a  comparatively  weak  and  dependent  neighbor  a  privi- 
lege claimed  on  grounds  so  fair  in  themselves,  and  so  en- 


41£  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

tirely  in  accordance  with  the  .liberal  principles  by  which  we 
profess  to  be  governed.  It  would  be  but  a  poor  encour- 
agement to  a  country  adopting  our  political  maxims  to  some 
extent,  and  carrying  them  into  the  administration  of  her 
own  commercial  affairs,  to  be  driven  from  the  liberal  policy 
she  has  espoused  into  the  old  system  of  exclusion  ;  to  be 
thus  checked  at  the  very  outset  in  her  attempts  to  cast  off 
the  shackles  which  she  has  regarded  as  the  greatest  imped- 
iment to  her  prosperity ;  to  be  forced  to  this  alternative,  too, 
by  us,  the  country,  above  all  others,  most  interested  in  the 
establishment  and  maintenance  of  an  enlightened  policy  in 
government  and  in  commerce. 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED   FROM   MEXICO. 

The  speech  which  follows  —  the  last  made  by  Mr.  Dix  in  the 
Senate  —  was  delivered  on  the  28th  February,  1849,  three  days  before 
the  adjournment  of  Congress.  The  question  before  the  Senate,  pre- 
sented in  a  variety  of  forms,  was  the  institution  of  governments  for  the 
territories  acquired  from  Mexico,  —  a  question  embarrassed  throughout 
by  the  determination  of  the  Senators  from  the  slave  States  to  extend 
slavery  to  those  territories,  and  by  a  majority  of  the  Senators  from  the 
free  States  to  guard,  by  an  express  prohibition,  against  what  they  deemed 
a  moral  and  political  evil,  and  the  national  dishonor  of  restoring  it  where 
it  had  been  formally  abolished. 

I  REGRET  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  asking  the  indul- 
gence of  the  Senate  at  this  late  period  of  the  session ;  but  I 
feel  it  my  duty  to  make  some  remarks  upon  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin/  and  the  general 
subject  to  which  it  relates.  I  regret  also  to  be  under  the 
necessity  of  discussing  the  question  of  providing  a  govern- 
ment for  California,  in  the  form  under  which  it  is  presented 
to  us,  —  in  an  amendment  to  an  appropriation  bill.  Inde- 
pendently of  this  objection,  I  have  considered  it  from  the 
beginning  a  measure  of  too  great  importance  to  be  disposed 
of  in  this  incidental  manner.  The  proposition  of  the  Sen- 
ator from  Tennessee,^  also  in  the  form  of  an  amendment  to 
this  bill,  was  almost  ruled  out  of  this  body,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  was  incongruous  and  out  of  place.  It  received  in 
the  end  but  four  votes.  I  consider  this  amendment  equally 
irrelevant  and  misplaced. 

The  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  proposed  to 

admit  California  and  New  Mexico  into  the  Union  as  a  State. 

The  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  arms  the 

President  with  extraordinary  powers  to  govern  these  terri- 

1  Mr.  Walker.  2  Mr.  Bell. 


414  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

tories.  On  the  score  of  congruity,  in  respect  to  the  general 
purposes  of  the  bill  upon  which  they  were  proposed  to  be  in- 
grafted, I  see  no  difference  between  them ;  and  I  do  not 
understand  how  one  proposition  should  be  resisted  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  incongruous,  and  the  other  entertained  as 
unobjectionable  in  this  respect.  Although  I  did  not  concur 
in  the  propriety  of  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Ten- 
nessee, and  although  I  considered  his  argument  not  very  hap- 
pily adjusted  to  the  conclusion  it  aimed  to  enforce,  yet  I  must 
say  that  I  decidedly  prefer  his  proposition  to  the  one  before 
us.  I  would  rather  admit  California  and  New  Mexico  into 
the  Union  as  a  State,  wholly  unfit  as  I  think  they  are,  than 
to  arm  the  President  with  despotic  powers  to  govern  them, 
—  not  from  any  distrust  of  the  individual  by  whom  those 
powers  would  be  exercised,  but  because  I  consider  such  a 
delegation  of  authority  to  any  individual  utterly  indefensible. 
The  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  is  disposed 
of,  and  I  have  therefore  not  a  word  to  say  in  respect  to  it. 
But  there  are  three  other  propositions  before  this  body :  first, 
the  bill  introduced  by  the  select  committee,  of  which  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  ^  is  chairman  ;  second,  the  amendment 
of  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  now  under  immediate  con- 
sideration ;  and,  third,  the  territorial  bill  which  was  received 
from  the  House  yesterday,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories  this  morning.  The  first  creates  a  State  out  of 
a  portion  of  California,  and  admits  it  into  the  Union  ;  it  also 
creates  the  State  of  New  Mexico  in  futuro,  and  leaves  it  out 
>pf  the  Union.  The  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Wis- 
^consin  vests  in  the  President  all  the  power  which  a  state  or 
territorial  government  ought  to  possess  over  both  territories. 
It  authorizes  him  to  prescribe  and  establish  all  proper  and 
needful  rules  and  regulations,  in  conformity  with  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  to  carry  into  operation  the 
laws  referred  to  in  the  first  part  of  the  proposition,  for  the 
preservation  of  order  and  tranquillity,  and  the  establishment 

1  Mr.  Douglas. 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED   FROM  MEXICO.  415 

of  justice  therein, — not  an  executive,  but  a  creative  power, — 
and  from  time  to  time  to  modify  or  change  said  rules  and  reg- 
ulations, in  such  a  manner  as  may  seem  to  him  desirable  and 
proper.  It  authorizes  him  to  establish  offices,  and  to  appoint 
and  commission  officers,  for  such  terms  as  he  may  think  prop- 
er, and  to  fix  their  compensation.  It  is  literally  arming  him 
with  dictatorial  powers.  It  appears  to  me  to  delegate  to  him, 
nearly  in  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  the  power  under 
which  the  authority  to  establish  governments  for  the  territories 
has  been  claimed.  And,  sir,  if  the  President  elect,  on  taking 
into  his  hands  the  reins  of  government,  should  find  himself,  in 
respect  to  the  States,  a  less  absolute  ruler  than  he  was  at  the 
head  of  his  army,  he  will,  in  respect  to  these  territories,  be  amply 
indemnified  for  any  diminution  of  authority  he  may  have  sus- 
tained by  exchanging  a  military  for  a  civil  station.  He  will  find 
himself  in  the  possession  of  larger  powers  than  he  ever  before 
possessed.  I  repeat,  my  objection  is  not  founded  on  any 
distrust  of  the  individual  by  whom  these  powers  are  to  be 
exercised.  I  believe  him  to  possess  honesty  and  truth, —  the 
highest  ornaments  of  exalted  station.  But  1  will  not  consent 
to  delegate  to  any  individual,  whatever  confidence  I  may  have 
in  him,  the  powers  this  amendment  proposes  to  confer, — 
'-  mighty  powers,"  as  the  mover  himself  pronounced  them. 
I  forbore,  Mr.  President,  to  take  any  part  in  the  debate 
while  the  Senate  was  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  except  to 
urge  that  all  such  amendments  might  be  withdrawn.  I  for- 
bore to  make  any  proposition,  by  way  of  amendment,  to  that 
offered  by  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  because  1  believed  all 
such  propositions  to  be  out  of  place.  But  when  this  amend- 
ment had  been  adopted  by  a  deliberate  vote  of  the  Senate,  i 
prepared  a  bill  —  a  full  territorial  bill  —  with  a  view  to  es- 
tablish a  government  in  California,  on  the  basis  of  law,  with 
powers  clearly  defined  for  the  governing,  and  rights  clearly 
defined  for  the  governed.  When  the  territorial  bill  was  re- 
ceived yesterday  from  the  House,  I  resolved  not  to  offer  mine 
as  an  amendment  to  the  bill  before  us,  extremely  averse  as  I 


416  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

am  to  all  of  these  propositions,  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  presented.  But  I  hold  a  territorial  government  the  only- 
proper  one  to  be  created  for  these  territories,  under  a  system 
like  ours,  excepting  for  the  merest  temporary  purposes. 
The  object  of  the  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Wiscon- 
sin is  more  than  temporary,  whatever  its  language  may 
import.  It  has  no  limitation  in  point  of  time.  The  powers 
it  confers  are  equally  unlimited  in  scope  and  duration. 
And,  Mr.  President,  I  am  constrained  to  say,  with  all  def- 
erence to  the  majority  of  the  Senate,  that  I  consider  it  the 
most  objectionable  proposition  I  have  been  required  to  vote 
upon  since  I  have  been  a  member  of  this  body. 

Precedents  have  been  cited  to  sustain  this  amendment :  one 
in  the  case  of  Florida,  and  the  other  in  that  of  Louisiana. 
Now,  sir,  let  me  refer  to  dates  to  see  how  far  the  precedents 
are  applicable  to  it.  The  treaty  with  Spain  for  the  cession  of 
Florida  was  ratified  here  on  the  22d  of  February,  1819,  and 
it  was  to  be  ratified  in  six  months,  or  sooner  if  possible,  by 
the  King  of  Spain.  This  was  the  short  session  of  Congress  ; 
and  the  six  months  would  have  brought  us  to  the  ££d  Au- 
gust, 1819,  when  Congress  was  not  in  session.  The  act  of 
the  3d  March  of  that  year  was  therefore  passed,  authorizing 
the  President  to  take  possession  of  the  territory.  It  was  to 
expire  at  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  Congress.  But  the 
treaty  was  not  ratified  by  the  King  of  Spain  until  the  S4th  of 
October,  1820,  and  I  believe  Florida  was  not  taken  posses- 
sion of  under  this  act  at  all.  The  treaty  as  ratified  by  Spain 
was  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  14th  February,  1821,  as  the 
ratification  was  not  within  the  time  limited.  It  was  ratified 
by  the  Senate  on  the  19th  February  of  that  year.  The  act  of 
the  8d  March,  1821,  was  then  passed,  reenacting  substantially 
the  act  of  Sd  March,  1819.  This  was  also  to  expire  at  the 
close  of  the  next  session  of  Cong-ress.  The  Senator  from 
New  Jersey  stated  that  Florida  was  governed  about  three 
years  under  the  act  of  1819.     Am  I  mistaken? 

Mr.  Dayton.     Two  years. 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  417 

The  territorial  government  of  Florida,  as  I  have  stated, 
was  established  on  the  80th  March,  1822, —  one  year  and 
twenty-seven  days  after  the  passage  of  the  last  act  authoriz- 
ing the  President  to  take  possession  of  the  territory. 

The  Louisiana  treaty  was  ratified  by  the  Senate  on  the 
20th  October,  1803.  An  act  was  passed  on  the  81st  of  the 
same  month,  eleven  days  afterwards,  authorizing  the  Presi- 
dent to  take  possession  of  the  territory ;  and  this  act  was  to 
expire  at  the  close  of  the  same  session  of  Congress.  On  the 
26th  March,  1804<,  a  territorial  government  was  established, 
to  take  effect  the  1st  October,  1804.  The  power  was  exer- 
cised in  this  case  eleven  months.  In  both  cases,  the  dura- 
tion of  the  act  was  limited  to  the  close  of  the  same  or  the 
ensuing  session  of  Congress.  The  powers  conferred  were 
to  expire  at  a  certain  period.  The  want  of  such  a  provision 
in  this  amendment  constitutes  one  of  the  strongest  objections 
to  it.  But  even  this  omission  sinks  into  insignificance  when 
compared  with  the  magnitude  of  the  powers  which  the 
amendment  confers. 

I  cannot  believe  this  amendment  can  receive  all  the  consti* 
tutional  sanctions  necessary  to  give  it  the  validity  of  law. 
I  shall,  therefore,  proceed  to  examine  the  other  propositions 
before  the  Senate,  as  we  may  be  called  upon  to  act  on  them 
when  it  is  too  late  for  discussion.  I  wish  to  avail  myself,  for 
a  very  short  time,  of  the  privilege  which  has  been  taken  by 
other  Senators,  of  speaking  upon  the  diflferent  propositions 
before  us. 

The  14th  May,  1787?  was  the  day  fixed  for  the  meeting 
of  the  Federal  convention  by  which  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  framed.  A  majority  of  the  States  was 
not  convened  until  the  25th  of  the  same  month;  and  noth- 
ing was  done,  with  the  exception  of  organizing  and  adopting 
rules  for  the  orderly  transaction  of  business,  until  the  29th, 
when  Governor  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  to  use  the  language 
of  the  Journal,  "opened  the  main  business  of  the  session  ";  or, 
as  he  expressed  himself,  "  the  great  subject  of  their  mission." 

53 


418  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

He  spoke  of  the  difficulty  of  the  crisis,  the  necessity  of  revis- 
ing the  Federal  system,  the  properties  such  a  government 
ought  to  possess,  the  defects  of  the  Confederation,  the  dan- 
gerous situation  of  the  States,  and  the  remedy.  His  propo- 
sitions for  the  correction  and  enlargement  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  so  as  to  accomplish  the  objects  of  their  insti- 
tution, were  stated  in  a  series  of  resolutions,  one  of  vt^hich 
declared  that  provision  ought  to  be  made  for  the  admission 
of  States,  lawfully  arising  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  whether  from  a  voluntary  junction  of  government 
and  territory,  or  otherwise.  He  was  immediately  followed 
by  Mr.  Charles  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  who  presented 
a  plan  of  a  Federal  Constitution,  in  which  it  was  provided 
that  the  Legislature  should  have  power  to  admit  new  States 
into  the  Union  on  the  same  terms  with  the  original  States, 
provided  two  thirds  of  the  members  present  in  both  Houses 
agree.  We  all  know  in  what  manner  these  propositions 
were  modified  in  the  subsequent  proceedings  of  the  conven- 
tion, and  the  limitations  by  which  the  exercise  of  the  power 
was  guarded  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  How  far 
the  extension  of  our  political  jurisdiction  beyond  the  existing 
boundaries  of  the  States  and  their  territories  was  in  contem- 
plation at  that  time,  I  do  not  stop  to  inquire.  We  have 
given  a  practical  construction  to  this  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution. We  have  admitted  into  the  Union  six  States  be- 
yond the  limits  of  the  thirteen  original  States  and  their  terri- 
tories,—  one  an  independent  nation,  and  the  others  colonial 
dependencies  at  the  time  of  their  acquisition. 

The  debates  in  the  Federal  convention,  which  seem  to 
have  had  an  exclusive  reference  to  the  admission  of  new 
States  from  territory  we  then  possessed,  show  that,  even  in 
these  cases,  the  extension  of  the  proposed  system,  so  as  to 
include  new  members,  was  deemed  a  matter  of  the  utmost 
delicacy  and  importance,  not  only  as  affecting  the  proper  bal- 
ance of  its  parts,  but  in  respect  to  the  moral  influence  of 
such  extension  upon  the  character  of  the  whole.    This  dispo- 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4,19 

sition  in  the  original  States  to  surround  the  system  with  all 
the  safeguards  necessary  to  insure  its  stability,  and  to  per- 
petuate the  principles  in  which  its  foundations  were  laid,  had 
even  an  earlier  date  than  the  era  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. It  is  shown  in  the  ordinance  of  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation,  providing  for  the  territory  northwest  of  thj 
Ohio  river.  The  ordinance  prescribed  rules  for  the  govern- 
ment of  that  territory,  in  its  moral  as  well  as  its  political  re- 
lations ;  and  it  imposed  upon  the  admission  of  the  States  to 
be  formed  out  of  it,  in  respect  to  representation,  conditions 
more  onerous  than  those  which  were  annexed  by  the  Federal 
convention  to  the  representation  of  the  thirteen  original 
States.  These  exactions  and  conditions  all  had  for  their 
object  to  maintain  the  purity  of  the  system,  the  homogeueous- 
ness  of  its  parts,  and  the  harmony  of  its  movements.  They 
looked  to  training  and  discipline  in  the  school  of  representa- 
tive government  before  the  communities  which  were  to  be 
incorporated  into  the  Union  were  raised  to  the  dignity  and 
equality  of  sovereign  States. 

Sir.  I  hold  to  this  prudence  and  caution  in  the  founders 
of  the  Republic.  I  believe  ft  to  be  due  to  ourselves,  to  the 
institutions  they  framed,  and  to  the  future  miUions  whose 
destiny  for  good  or  for  evil  is  in  some  degree  to  be  wrought 
out  in  our  political  action. 

I  deduce,  then,  from  the  organization  of  the  government, 
this  practical  principle,  which  I  hold  to  be  fundamental : 
that  no  State  ouo^ht  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  which  has 
not  been  prepared  by  a  familiar  knowledge  of  the  theory 
and  practice  of  our  political  system,  and  by  such  a  training  in 
the  discipline  of  free  institutions  as  to  render  its  participation 
in  the  administration  of  the  general  concerns  an  aid  and  an 
advantage,  not  an  embarrassment  and  an  obstacle,  to  the 
steady  action  of  the  system. 

This  requirement,  which  I  consider  absolute,  is  not  ful- 
filled by  the  condition  of  California.  The  bill  reported  by 
the  select  committee  admits  that  territory  into  the  Union 


4£0  SPEECHES   IN  THE   SENATE. 

at  once  as  a  sovereign  State.  That,  too,  was  the  purport 
of  the  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Tennessee,  though  it 
embraced  New  Mexico  also.  This  proposition  is  directly- 
opposed  to  all  the  practical  rules  and  usages  of  the  Republic, 
from  its  foundation  to  the  present  day.  It  is  in  palpable 
violation  of  the  principle  I  have  stated  as  inherent  in  the 
organization  of  the  Federal  government.  It  discards  all  the 
prudential  considerations  which  entered  into  the  reasonings 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  concerning  the  extension 
of  our  political  system. 

Let  me  state  some  of  the  leading  objections  to  it,  as  they 
relate  to  the  condition  of  California.  1.  Its  present  inhab- 
itants are,  to  a  considerable  extent,  Indians  or  Mexicans  of 
mixed  blood.  2.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  uneducated. 
S,  They  are  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  business  of 
self-government.  4.  They  do  not  even  speak  our  language. 
5.  They  would  not  come  into  the  Union  with  an  enlightened 
understanding  of  the  principles  of  our  political  system,  or 
with  the  general  cultivation  and  intelligence  essential  to  such 
a  fulfilment  of  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  Amer- 
ican citizen  as  to  render  them  safe  participants  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  government.  I  need  not  enlarge  upon  these 
propositions.  Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  condition 
of  California  and  the  character  of  the  people  will  assent  to 
their  truth.  I  hold  these  objections  to  the  immediate  ad- 
mission of  California  into  the  Union  as  a  State  —  objections 
drawn  from  the  character  and  condition  of  the  people  — 
to  be  insuperable.  I  know  very  well  that  territory  is  rapidly 
filling  up,  and  that  it  is  receiving  from  us  thousands  of 
citizens,  active,  enterprising,  and  of  unexceptionable  charac- 
ter. But  we  know  also  that  it  is  receiving  multitudes  of 
adventurers  from  almost  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  —  from 
both  hemispheres,  from  Oceanica,  from  the  European  conti- 
nent and  islands,  —  some  for  a  permanent  abode,  but  more 
for  mere  temporary  purposes.  I  wish  to  see  this  heteroge- 
neous mass  pass  through  the  process  of  fermentation,  to  which 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4^1 

it  is  destined,  and  settle  down  into  something  like  consist- 
ence, before  we  undertake  to  endow  it  with  all  the  attributes 
of  self-government 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  sustained  by  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  the  government.  1.  Our  alien  laws  have  always 
prescribed  a  period  of  probation  for  individuals  who  come 
among  us  for  a  permanent  abode,  and  to  unite  their  fortunes 
to  ours.  This  period  has  always  been  of  several  years  in 
duration.  The  most  liberal  (and  of  these  I  have  always 
claimed  to  be  one)  have  never  proposed  to  dispense  alto- 
gether with  this  probationary  term.  The  only  question  is 
as  to  its  proper  extent.  It  proceeds  upon  the  principle, 
admitted  by  all,  that  no  man  shall  become  a  member  of  our 
political  association  until  he  has  been  taught  by  experience 
to  appreciate  its  advantages,  and  to  take  part  in  its  deliber- 
ations with  some  knowledge  of  its  requirements.  2.  The 
same  principle  which  has  governed  in  cases  of  individual 
immigration  has  been  applied  to  territories  acquired  by 
treaty  and  to  large  masses  of  persons.  When  Louisiana 
was  ceded  to  us  by  France,  we  stipulated  that  the  inhabitants 
should  be  incorporated  into  the  Union,  and  admitted  as  soon 
as  possible,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, to  the  enjoyments  of  the  rights,  advantages,  and 
immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  and  in  the 
mean  time  that  they  should  be  maintained  and  protected  in 
the  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  their  property,  and  in  the 
exercise  of  the  religion  they  professed. 

Louisiana  was  acquired  in  180S.  The  inhabitants  made 
repeated  applications  for  admission  into  the  Union ;  they 
protested  against  the  tardy  action  of  Congress;  they  ap- 
pealed to  the  treaty  in  vindication  of  their  right  to  such 
admission.  Yet  Congress  refused  to  admit  Louisiana  into 
the  Union  as  a  State  until  1812.  Nine  years  were  deemed 
necessary  to  prepare  the  inhabitants  for  the  exercise  of  the 
highest  political  rights,  though  there  was  a  strong  infusion 
of  our  own  citizens  among  them. 


4^2  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Florida  was  acquired  in  1820,  and  in  the  treaty  with 
Spain  there  was  a  stipulation  nearly  identical  in  language 
with  that  which  was  contained  in  the  treaty  with  France  for 
the  cession  of  Louisiana,  in  respect  to  the  admission  of  the 
inhabitants  into  the  Union.  Yet  Florida  was  not  admitted 
as  a  State  until  1845,  —  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  its 
acquisition.  I  know  that  numbers  had  something  to  do 
with  this  delay ;  but  other  considerations  doubtless  had  their 
influence  also.  These  territories  were  both  foreign ;  and, 
when  acquired,  their  inhabitants  were  presumed  to  have  but 
little  knowledge  of  the  theory  or  practice  of  our  political 
institutions. 

But  even  with  our  own  territories  and  our  own  people 
we  have  dealt  with  the  same  caution  and  the  same  prudent 
regard  to  the  privileges  which  an  admission  into  the 
Union  confers.  Instead  of  curtailing  the  period  of  proba- 
tion, where  Congress  had  a  discretion,  we  have  rather  been 
disposed  to  insist  on  a  rigid  fulfilment  of  the  prescribed  con- 
ditions, both  in  respect  to  numbers  and  time. 

The  ordinance  of  17^7?  t)y  which  the  division  of  the 
territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river  into  States,  and  the 
ultimate  incorporation  of  those  States  into  the  Union,  were 
provided  for,  fixed  on  sixty  thousand  free  inhabitants  as  the 
number  necessary  to  their  admission  ;  but  it  was  provided 
also  that,  so  far  as  it  should  consist  with  the  general  inter- 
est of  the  Confederacy,  such  admission  might  be  allowed  at 
an  earlier  period,  and  with  a  less  number  of  inhabitants. 
Yet  Ohio  was  not  admitted  into  the  Union  until  1 80£.  It 
must  have  had  sixty  thousand  inhabitants ;  and  it  was  admit- 
ted with  a  single  member  of  Congress.  At  the  same  time 
the  ratio  of  representation  in  Congress  was  one  member  for 
thirty-three  thousand  inhabitants. 

Indiana  was  admitted  in  1816,  Illinois  in  1818,  Mich- 
igan in  1887,  and  Wisconsin  a  year  ago.  These  territories 
were  settled  chiefly  by  our  own  people.  The  settlers  came 
from  the  old  States.     They  were  nurtured  in  the  love  of 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4£3 

liberty,  and  trained  to  the  exercise  of  political  rights.  All 
their  associations  were  of  a  character  to  render  them  safe 
depositaries  of  the  priceless  treasure  of  freedom.  Yet  they 
were  subjected  to  a  protracted  probation.  They  were  held 
in  political  subjection,  not  only  in  respect  to  the  appointment 
of  their  chief  executive  officers,  but  in  the  more  delicate  re- 
lation of  supervising  and  overruling  them  in  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  legislation. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  has  been  our  practice,  not  only  in 
respect  to  territories  acquired  by  treaties  with  foreign  pow- 
ers, but  in  respect  to  our  own  people  occupying  territories 
held  by  a  tenure  coeval  with  our  political  independence.  The 
bill  reported  by  the  select  committee  proposes  to  overthrow 
and  reverse  the  uniform  practice  of  the  country  in  this  essen- 
tial particular.  This  practice  assumes  that  some  familiarity 
with  the  duties  and  privileges  of  citizenship  is  necessary 
for  the  inhabitants  of  a  territory  as  a  preparation  for  the 
independent  management  of  their  public  affairs.  It  supposes 
that  a  territorial  government,  founded  upon  principles  and 
administered  according  to  laws  analogous  to  those  which 
govern  the  State  administrations,  should  precede  the  admis- 
sion of  a  territory  into  the  Union.  It  holds  the  privileges, 
the  responsibilities,  the  rights  incident  to  an  independent 
membership  of  the  political  association,  into  which  the  States 
have  entered,  to  be  of  too  great  a  value  to  be  communicated 
to  other  communities  without  a  just  regard  to  their  capacity 
for  assuming  and  exercising  them  with  advantage  to  others 
as  well  as  to  themselves. 

The  bill  discards  all  these  considerations.     California  has 

ll^not  yet  been  acquired  a  single  year;   nine   months  ago  it 
^as  foreign  territory.     Its  population  is  foreign ;  its  inter- 

Pests,  associations,  usages,  laws,  and  institutions  are,  in  some 
degree,  alien  to  our  own.  The  people  do  not  even  speak 
our  language;  they  cannot  read  our  Constftution  or  laws 
without  translating  them  into  a  foreign  tongue.  Yet  the 
committee  propose  to  admit  it  into  the  Union  on  the  footing 


4^4  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

of  the  original  States,  and  to  give  it  a  weight  in  this  body 
equal  to  that  of  Virginia,  or  Pennsylvania,  or  New  York. 
With  a  population,  perhaps,  of  twenty  thousand  souls,  it  is 
to  wield  here  an  influence  equal  to  that  of  New  York,  with 
three  millions. 

I  cannot  consent  to  cheapen,  in  this  manner,  an  indepen- 
dent membership  in  the  union  of  the  States.  I  believe  it  to 
be  unjust  to  the  present  members  of  the  Union,  hazardous 
to  the  stability  of  the  government,  a  departure  from  a  wise 
and  well-considered  policy,  and  unjust,  as  I  shall  endeavor 
to  show,  to  California  herself. 

Her  physical  and  social  condition  is  as  un suited  to  the 
independent  management  of  her  own  concerns  as  her  intel- 
lectual and  moral.  Her  population  is  scattered  over  a  vast 
surface  ;  her  improvements  are  not  such  as  to  give  stability 
to  her  political  organization ;  she  has  no  commerce  ;  she 
has  hardly  emerged  from  the  pastoral  state  and  risen  to  the 
grade  of  an  agricultural  community.  She  has  not  the 
strength  to  uphold  an  independent  sovereignty.  The  recent 
discoveries  of  gold  have  made  a  bad  condition  worse ;  they 
have  dissolved,  for  the  time  being,  the  very  bonds  of  society. 
It  will  require  months,  if  not  years,  to  restore  order,  to 
bring  back  her  people  to  the  sober  pursuits  of  industry,  and 
to  qualify  them  for  any  deliberative  purpose.  I  believe  there 
never  was  a  community  less  fitted  than  California  is  at  this 
moment,  and  under  existing  circumstances,  to  organize  a 
government  and  put  it  in  operation.  All  the  influences 
which  are  at  work  with  the  minds  and  passions  of  men  are 
to  the  last  degree  unfavorable  to  the  high  duty  the  bill  im- 
poses on  them.  When  all  the  obligations  which  bind  men 
to  the  performance  of  their  duty  appear  to  have  lost  their 
force ;  when  ships  are  abandoned  by  their  crews ;  when 
soldiers  desert  by  platoons  and  companies ;  when  villages 
and  towns  are  depopulated  ;  and  when  the  whole  community 
is  possessed  by  the  frenzy  of  gold-digging,  and  lose  sight 
of  all  other  objects ;  we  call  upon  them  to  meet  in  solemn 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4^5 

conclave  and  perform  the  highest  and  most  responsible  of  all 
deliberative  acts  —  that  of  framing  a  constitution  for  their 
own  government,  —  a  work  of  deliberation  and  soberness 
and  calm  reflection.  I  have  been,  from  the  beginning,  op- 
posed to  this  whole  scheme.  I  believe,  if  ever  there  was  an 
occasion,  since  the  foundations  of  this  Republic  were  laid, 
when  it  was  incumbent  upon  Congress  to  establish  a  tempo- 
rary government  for  a  territory,  to  provide  for  its  wants,  to 
give  direction  to  its  action,  and  to  sustain  it  by  the  collective 
wisdom  and  strength  of  the  whole  community,  until  it  shall 
have  passed  through  the  period  of  probation  to  which  all  our 
territories  have  been  subjected, — a  period  rendered  doubly 
perilous  there  by  the  prevailing  disorganization,  —  that  occa- 
sion is  presented  in  the  condition  of  California. 

I  am  in  favor,  then,  of  a  territorial  government,  endowed 
with  the  energy  to  control  and  remedy  existing  embarrass- 
ments and  evils.  I  believe  the  course  proper  in  all  similar 
cases  is  preeminently  proper  in  this.  I  shall  concur  in  no 
other,  unless  it  be  for  a  mere  temporary  purpose.  And  it 
was  with  great  regret  that  I  heard  honorable  Senators  say 
there  was  no  hope  of  giving  California  a  territorial  gov- 
ernment. I  do  not  concur  in  opinion  with  them.  I  will 
not  relinquish  hope  until  the  last  moment.  The  most  cer- 
tain mode  of  giving  effect  to  a  feeling  of  hopelessness  is  to 
despair  of  the  battle  before  it  is  fought,  and  resort  to  other 
devices  to  supply  our  own  want  of  constancy  and  courage. 

The  objections  I  have  stated  to  this  bill  are  insuperable ; 
they  are  fundamental,  and  therefore  not  to  be  obviated. 
There  are  objections  of  detail,  which  might  be  remedied  ; 
but  I  will  merely  state,  without  enlarging  upon  them,  —  as 
no  variation  in  the  details  can  reconcile  me  to  the  general 
purpose  of  the  bill,  —  the  immediate  admission  of  California 
into  the  Union  as  a  State. 

Of  these  objections  I  consider  the  dismemberment  of  Cal- 
ifornia one  of  the  most  serious.  I  would  keep  that  territory 
as  it  is  until  the  spread  of  population  and  the  growth  of 

54 


4£6  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

improvement  shall  indicate  where  the  division  line  can  be 
drawn  with  least  prejudice  to  the  parties  concerned.  The 
bill  proposes  a  chain  of  mountains  as  the  eastern  boundary. 
Sir,  physical  obstacles  are  not  always  the  most  appropriate 
or  convenient  for  statistical  divisions.  Moral  obstacles  are 
more  powerful  to  repel,  and  moral  affinities  more  powerful 
to  attract,  than  physical.  Identity  or  diversity  of  race,  asso- 
ciation, or  condition  often  does  more  than  rivers,  and  moun- 
tains, and  plains  to  bind  men  together  or  force  them  asunder. 
What  is  there,  for  instance,  in  the  class  of  natural  obstacles 
more  appropriate  for  a  statistical  demarcation  than  the  Alle- 
ghany mountains  1  And  yet  they  have  not  sufficed  to  divide 
Virginia  into  two  distinct  communities.  Nor  have  they 
sufficed  to  divide  Pennsylvania  into  two  States.  What  is 
there  more  suitable  for  such  a  purpose  than  the  Chesapeake 
bay  ?  And  yet  Maryland  lies  on  both  sides  of  it.  If  we 
were  to  look  to  physical  obstacles  as  constituting  the  most 
appropriate  boundary  for  California  on  the  east,  we  ought  to 
stop  at  the  Sierra  Nevada,  which  is  more  elevated  than  the 
boundary  of  the  committee,  "  the  dividing  ridge  separating 
the  waters  flowing  into  the  Colorado  from  those  flowing 
into  the  Great  Basin,"  or  we  ought  to  go  on  to  the  Sierra 
Madre,  and  leave  the  territory  with  its  present  limits.  We 
need  not  consider  geographical  extent  as  an  objection  to  the 
organization  of  a  territorial  government.  When  Louisiana 
was  acquired,  we  placed  all  that  part  of  it  north  of  the 
thirty-third  parallel  of  latitude  under  the  direction  of  the 
governor  and  the  judges  of  the  Indiana  territory,  for  the 
purposes  of  government  and  the  administration  of  justice; 
and  it  had  a  more  extended  area  than  California. 

Let  us  leave  statistical  divisions  to  be  fixed  by  events. 
The  movement  of  population,  physical  development,  social 
progress,  and  their  incidents,  —  these  are  the  great  causes 
which  mark  out  permanent  boundaries  between  separate 
states.  Let  us  leave  California  to  be  filled  up,  and  the  races 
which  occupy  it  can  better  determine  than  we  who  shall 
live  apart  and  who  together. 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4^'^ 

The  disposition  the  bill  makes  of  New  Mexico,  I  con- 
sider, if  possible,  still  more  objectionable.  She  was  known 
long  before  the  era  of  Von  Humboldt  as  having  a  distinct 
organization.  In  connection  with  Durango  and  Chihuahua, 
she  constituted  an  independent  member  of  the  Mexican 
confederation,  under  the  constitutive  act  of  1824<,  and  a 
separate  territory  under  the  constitution  of  that  year.  The 
consolidation  of  the  confederated  states  into  a  central  repub- 
lic, under  the  constitution  of  1836,  made  her  a  separate 
department,  with  an  independent  organization  for  the  man- 
agement of  her  local  concerns.  We  have  held  commercial 
intercourse  with  her  under  laws  applying  only  to  herself 
and  another  member  of  the  Mexican  republic.  She  has 
had  an  individual  name,  existence,  and  organization.  So 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  they  shall  be  respected.  I  will  nei- 
ther consent  that  she  shall  be  dismembered  nor  •  mergfed  in 
a  more  extended  organization.  Subjection  by  conquest  is 
the  greatest  humiliation  that  can  befall  a  community.  The 
magnanimity  of  the  conquerors  should  spare  the  subjugated 
state  the  further  humiliation  of  dismemberment,  or  the  oblit- 
eration of  its  identity  in  a  useless  extension.  I  will  neither 
consent  to  play  towards  New  Mexico  the  part  of  Austria, 
Russia,  and  Prussia  towards  Poland,  nor  the  part  of  the 
Holy  Alliance  towards  Genoa.  I  will  neither  agree  that 
she  shall  be  divided  nor  swallowed  up.  She  has  petitioned 
to  us  to  save  her  from  dismemberment.  I  am  for  exercis- 
ing our  power  over  her  with  humanity  as  well  as  forbear- 
ance, —  for  conforming,  as  far  as  we  can,  to  the  wishes  of 
the  vanquished.  I  believe  she  is  now,  considering  all  cir- 
cumstances, as  well  fitted  to  come  into  the  Union  as  Califor- 
nia. I  will  not  consent  to  dilute  what  fitness  for  self-gov- 
ernment she  possesses  by  a  territorial  expansion  of  which  I 
can  neither  comprehend  the  object  nor  foresee  the  result. 

But  it  is  not  quite  clear,  from  the  language  of  this  bill, 
what  is  to  be  the  fate  of  New  Mexico,  —  whether  she  is  to 
be  merged  wholly  or  in  part  in  Texas,  or  merely  drawn  out 


4^8  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

to  the  Pacific.  If  the  latter,  —  and  I  suppose  this  to  be  the 
intention  of  the  committee,  —  she  will  be  stretched  out  some 
two  or  three  hundred  miles  westward  on  the  north,  and 
eight  or  nine  hundred  on  the  south.  But  the  New  Mexico 
created  by  the  bill  is  to  be  bounded  on  the  east  by  the  sum- 
mit of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the  State  of  Texas.  The 
Rocky  Mountains,  or  the  Sierra  Madre,  a  continuation  of 
them,  are  now  the  western  boundary  of  New  Mexico.  I 
am  not  sure  whether  they  would  not  under  this  bill  become 
the  western  boundary  of  Texas.  I  am  not  sure  that  New 
Mexico  would  not  be  merged  in  Texas  by  the  mere  designa- 
tion of  a  boundary  line.  The  bill  seems  to  me,  by  a  literal 
construction  of  its  terms,  to  accomplish  these  three  objects, 
alike  objectionable  in  my  mind :  1 .  The  annexation  of  New 
Mexico  to  Texas.  2,  The  dismemberment  of  California. 
And,  S.  The  creation  of  a  new  State  of  New  Mexico, 
wholly  within  the  limits  of  California,  and  wholly  without 
the  limits  of  the  present  New  Mexico. 

Nor  is  this  all.  While  the  bill  introduces  California  into 
the  Union,  it  leaves  New  Mexico  out  of  it.  We  consent 
that  it  shall  become  a  State  of  this  Union,  with  the  name 
and  style  of  the  State  of  New  Mexico,  as  soon  as  it 
shall  have  the  proper  number  of  inhabitants.  What  is 
the  proper  number  of  inhabitants  ]  Louisiana  was  admitted 
into  the  Union  with  about  eighty  thousand  ;  (I  speak  in 
round  numbers;)  Ohio,  with  about  sixty  thousand;  Illinois, 
with  forty  thousand ;  Michigan,  with  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand ;  and  Florida,  with  perhaps  thirty  thousand  white 
persons.  Where  is  the  criterion  of  proper  numbers  to  be 
sought  for  ]  Is  it  in  the  ratio  of  representation  in  Congress  '? 
Why  not  say  so,  if  it  be  intended  ]  The  greater  portion 
of  the  territory  is  nearly  unpopulated.  It  is  not  likely, 
either  from  its  position  or  physical  character,  to  be  populated 
rapidly.  What  is  to  be  its  political  condition  until  it  has 
the  proper  number  of  inhabitants'?  It  cannot  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  until  then.     What  is  to  become  of  it  in  the 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4^9 

mean  time  1  To  what  political  category  is  it  to  belong  1 
It  is  not  to  be  a  territory.  The  bill  makes  no  provision  for 
it  as  such.  We  merely  cut  it  off'  from  California,  and  leave 
it  to  the  uncertain  progress  of  events,  and  the  still  more  un- 
certain phraseology  of  our  own  statute.  We  cast  it  away, 
to  use  a  barbarous  law-phrase,  "  a  flotsam "  on  the  ocean 
of  politics,  —  "  incertum  quo  fata  ferant^''  —  to  reclaim  it 
ourselves  at  some  future  day,  if  we  can  find  it  first,  and 
agree  afterwards  on  the  meaning  of  our  own  enactment. 

I  am  opposed  to  this  whole  scheme ;  it  seems  to  me  to 
have  been  dictated  by  a  desire  to  avoid  embarrassing  ques- 
tions. I  trust  I  appreciate  rightly  the  motives  of  honorable 
Senators.  But  I  hold  that  there  is  always  more  embarrass- 
ment in  postponing  or  evading  troublesome  questions  than  in 
meeting  them  boldly,  and  disposing  of  them  promptly  when 
they  present  themselves.  I  propose  to  myself  but  two  inqui- 
ries in  reference  to  the  course  we  ought  to  adopt.  1.  What 
does  the  interest  of  the  country,  and,  S.  What  does  the  in- 
terest of  California  and  New  Mexico  require  %  The  answer 
seems  to  me  to  be  too  clear  to  be  mistaken.  I  have  already 
given  it.  Both  considerations  point  to  a  territorial  govern- 
ment, framed  on  proper  principles. 

What  shall  these  principles  be  X  This  is  the  only  question 
which  remains  to  be  considered.  Recognizing,  as  I  do,  to 
the  fullest  extent,  the  democratic  doctrine  of  instructions,  I 
am  not  altogether  a  free  agent  in  this  matter.  During  the 
last  three  years,  resolutions  have  been  as  many  times  passed 
by  the  legislature  of  New  York,  and  presented  here  by 
myself,  declaring  that  in  any  territories  acquired  from  Mex- 
ico slavery  ought  to  be  prohibited.  I  have  endeavored  to 
carry  out  the  instructions  by  which  those  resolutions  were 
accompanied.  I  have  done  so  with  the  more  cheerfulness, 
because,  apart  from  all  obligations  of  obedience,  I  believe 
them  just. 

I  hold,  then,  that  territorial  governments  ought  to  be  or- 
ganized for  California  and  New  Mexico,  and  that  the  act 


430  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

establishing  them  should  contain  a  prohibition  of  slavery. 
I  believe  there  never  was  an  occasion  in  vrhich  such  a  pro- 
hibition was  demanded  by  higher  obligations  than  the  pres- 
ent. I  shall  endeavor  to  make  it  apparent  to  the  judgment 
of  the  Senate,  and  for  this  reason  I  shall  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  entering  into  a  brief  review  of  the  origin  and 
progress  of  slavery  in  the  United  States  ;  and  I  shall  begin 
with  the  condition  of  the  American  colonies  before  the  es- 
tablishment of  their  independence. 

Slavery,  I  believe,  was  never  originally  established  by 
law  in  any  State  in  this  Union,  nor  was  it  so  established  in 
the  British  colonies  in  America.  The  relation  of  master 
and  slave,  in  modern  times  and  in  civilized  states,  usually 
springs  up  in  the  transactions  of  commerce,  without  posi- 
tive authority,  and  the  law  afterward  comes  in  to  regulate 
it.  It  was  so  in  the  American  colonies.  It  is  a  curious 
fact,  that  the  same  year  (16^0)  which  witnessed  the  landing 
of  •the  Pilgrims  on  the  Rock  of  Plymouth  saw  the  first 
ship  enter  the  waters  of  the  Chesapeake  bay  and  the 
James  river  with  Africans  to  be  sold  into  slavery.  It  is 
still  more  curious  that  the  ship  freighted  with  freemen  and 
the  ship  freighted  with  slaves  commenced  their  voyages 
from  the  same  country — Holland.  In  the  same  year  the 
monopoly  of  the  London  company  was  overturned,  and  the 
commerce  of  the  colony  of  Virginia  was  thrown  open  to 
free  competition. 

The  introduction  of  slaves  into  that  colony  was  one  of 
the  first  fruits  of  this  commercial  freedom,  —  not  necessarily, 
but  as  one  of  those  incidents  which  the  chances  of  life  bring 
^with  them  to  illustrate  its  uncertainties  and  its  contradic- 
tions. There  was  no  law  in  Virginia  at  that  time  authoriz- 
ing the  existence  of  slavery ;  nor  was  there  any  such  law 
in  England.  It  gained  a  foothold  without  law.  Indeed, 
the  early  enactments  of  the  colony  of  Virginia  had  for  their 
objects  to  restrain  the  introduction  of  slaves,  and  to  limit 
the  control  of  their  masters  over  them.     Before  the  Revo- 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED  FROM  IVIEXICO.  431 

lution,  she  petitioned  the  British  king  to  sanction  the  meas- 
ures she  had  adopted  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade. 
The  appeal  was  vain.  It  was  the  interest  of  British  trad- 
ers, who  derived  a  mercenary  profit  from  this  detestable 
traffic,  that  it  should  continue  ;  and,  down  to  the  period  of 
the  Revolution,  every  effort  on  the  part  of  Virginia  and  the 
other  colonies  to  put  a  stop  to  it  was  fruitless.  Slavery  was 
thus  forced  upon  us  by  Great  Britain  ;  we  are  not  responsi- 
ble for  its  origin.  In  the  North  it  has  been  abolished  ;  in 
the  South,  peculiar  circumstances  have  continued  it  in  exist- 
ence. I  make  no  inquiry  into  those  circumstances,  or  their 
necessary  influence  upon  the  result.  The  responsibility 
which  rests  upon  us  is  to  see  that  it  is  not  further  extended, 
that  it  shall  not,  as  far  as  depends  on  us,  be  planted  where 
it  has  never  existed,  or  where  it  has  been  abolished. 

After  the  termination  of  the  war  with  Great  Britain, 
when  the  American  colonies,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  had  "  assumed  among  the  Pow- 
ers of  the  earth  the  equal  and  separate  station  to  which  the 
laws  of  Nature  and  of  Nature's  God  entitled  them,"  the  at- 
tention of  the  great  men  of  the  country  was  turned  to  the 
subject  of  slavery,  not  only  with  a  view  to  its  exclusion 
from  the  unoccupied  portions  of  the  Union,  but  with  a  view 
to  its  extinction  in  the  States  where  it  existed.  The  defini- 
tive treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  acknowledging  our 
independence,  was  signed  in  September,  1783.  In  March, 
1784,  Mr.  Jefferson  introduced  into  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  a  plan  of  a  temporary  government  for  the 
territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river,  containing  a  provision 
abolishing  slavery  after  the  year  1800  in  that  territory,  now 
comprising  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan, 
and  Wisconsin. 

The  anti-slavery  clause  received  the  votes  of  six  States 
out  of  the  ten  present  in  Congress.  Under  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  the  delegates  voted  by  States;  and  by  the 
same  Articles  a  majority  of  the  thirteen  States  was  requisite 


4fS2  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

to  carry  any  proposition.     Mr.  Jefferson's  proposition,  hav- 
ing received  only  six  votes,  was  not  adopted. 

I  hold  in  my  hand,  Mr.  President,  a  copy  of  his  plan  for 
a  temporary  government  for  the  Northwest  territory,  made 
from  the  original,  which  I  found  a  few  weeks  ago,  among 
the  archives  of  the  Confederation,  in  the  State  Department, 
where  they  are  deposited.^  The  original  is  in  the  clear, 
careful  handwriting  of  Mr.  Jefferson  ;  and  it  settles  the  ques- 
tion of  authorship.  It  divides  the  territory  into  ten  States 
instead  of  five,  as  was  finally  determined ;  and  it  contains 
the  anti-slavery  clause  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  which 
has  heretofore  been  attributed  to  him.  I  will  read  it  for 
the  information  of  the  Senate.  Like  some  other  proposi- 
tions of  a  kindred  character,  and  of  later  date,  it  is  in  the 
form  of  a  proviso  :  — 

"  After  the  year  1800  of  the  Christian  era,  there  shall  be  neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any  of  the  said  States  otherwise 
than  in  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted."  ^ 

I  am  happy  to  have  had  it  in  my  power  to  refer  this 
declaration  to  the  author  of  an  earlier  declaration  in  favor 
of  human  freedom,  —  I  mean  that  of  our  independence,  — 
and  to  have  found  it  in  his  own  handwriting.  Without 
this  testimony,  no  one  could  doubt,  on  reading  the  whole 
paper,  that  it  was  written  by  him.  It  contains  internal 
evidences  of  authorship  which,  to  any  one  familiar  with  his 
style  of  composition  and  his  peculiarity  of  thought,  must 
be  conclusive.  Let  it  be  known  henceforth  as  the  Jeffer- 
son proviso.  As  such,  it  will  at  least  escape  the  imputa- 
tion of  selfish  motives,  from  which,  in  the  prevailing  heat  of 
party  contention,  no  follower  in  the  same  field  can  hope  to 
be  exempt,  however  unjustly  they  may  be  attributed  to  him, 
I  have  already  said  that  this  proposition  failed  for  the  want 
of  a  single  vote.  It  was  renewed  in  1785  by  Rufus  King, 
then  representing  the   State  of  Massachusetts,  and  it  was 

1  Appendix,  No.  1.  '^  Appendix,  No.  2. 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  433 

referred  to  a  committee,  though  it  was  not  finally  acted  upon 
at  that  time.  The  reference  was  made  by  the  votes  of  eight 
States  out  of  eleven  present,  one  State  being  absent,  and 
another  represented  by  a  single  delegate,  and  therefore  not 
entitled,  according  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  to  vote.^ 

Thus  things  remained  until  17^7?  when  the  ordinance 
of  that  year  was  passed,  establishing  a  government  for  the 
Northwestern  territory,  and  prohibiting  slavery  within  it 
forever,  except  for  crimes.  This  ordinance  was  reported  by 
a  committee  of  which  Mr.  Edward  Carrington,  of  Virginia, 
was  chairman,  and  Mr.  Nathan  Dane,  of  Massachusetts,  a 
leading  member.  It  received  the  votes  of  all  the  States  pres- 
ent. It  was  a  unanimous  vote  as  to  States,  and  unanimous, 
with  a  single  exception,  as  to  delegates.  There  were  only 
eight  States  present,  viz :  Massachusetts,  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
and  Georgia.  The  five  absent  States  were  New  Hampshire, 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  and  Maryland. 
The  first  four  —  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Pennsylvania  —  voted  for  Mr.  Jefferson's  proviso  in 
1784,  and  Maryland  voted  to  refer  Mr.  King's  proposition! 
in  1785.2 

Thus,  I  think,  it  may  be  fairly  asserted  that  if  all  the 
States  had  been  represented  in  Congress,  the  vote  would  have 
been  equally  unanimous.  The  ordinance  would  have  been 
adopted  by  the  votes  of  the  thirteen  States. 

The  South  united  with  the  North  in  excluding  slavery 
from  this  territory.  It  was  a  unanimous  verdict  of  the  whole 
country  against  the  extension  of  slavery.  It  was  the  first 
great  movement  of  our  revolutionary  fathers  to  rid  them- 
selves of  the  responsibility  and  the  country  of  the  evil  of  sla- 
very. And  I  take  great  pleasure  in  awarding  to  a  South- 
ern man,  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  the  conception  of  this  great 
measure  of  justice  and  humanity. 

While  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  sitting  in  New 

1  Appendix,  No.  3.  2  Appendix,  No.  4. 

55 


434  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

York,  was  framing  the  ordinance  of  1787?  the  Federal  con- 
vention, sitting  in  Philadelphia,  was  framing  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  While  the  former  body  was  devis- 
ing measures  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  North- 
western territory,  the  latter  was  engaged  in  providing  for 
the  suppression  of  the  African  slave-trade.  Thus,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  new-born  Republic,  legislating  for  the  old 
government,  and  framing  a  new  system  for  the  better  ad- 
ministration of  their  common  concerns,  —  sitting  in  different 
places,  and  acting  in  separate  capacities,  —  were  jointly  en- 
gaged in  eradicating  what  they  considered  a  great  public  evil 
and  reproach.  While  the  former  declared  that  slavery  should 
thenceforth  be  forever  prohibited  in  the  Northwestern  ter- 
ritory, the  latter  virtually  declared  (though  in  the  form  of 
a  restriction  on  the  exercise  of  a  power)  the  American  slave- 
trade  should  cease  after  the  year  I8O7.  It  would  have 
been  abolished  at  once  but  for  the  opposition  of  South  Car-  j 
olina  and  Georgia,  the  only  States  which  were  at  that  time  ' 
desirous  of  continuing   it. 

In  the  Federal  convention,  Virginia  was  among  the  fore-  1 
most  in  her  opposition  to  the  slave-trade.  Madison,  and 
Mason,  and  Randolph  were  distinguished  for  the  ability  and 
zeal  with  which  they  advocated  its  immediate  suppression. 
They  were  unwilling  to  wait  twenty  years  for  its  abolition. 
But  their  efforts  were  unavailing;  and,  for  fear  South  Car- 
olina and  Georgia  would  not  come  into  the  Union,  a  com- 
promise was  agreed  on,  and  the  traffic  was  tolerated  until 
1808.  On  the  first  day  of  January  of  that  year,  the  very 
first  day  Congress  had  power  to  make  its  prohibition  effec- 
tive, the  slave-trade  was  abolished  forever  by  an  act  passed 
ten  months  before. 

I  have  stated  these  historical  details,  Mr.  President,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  two  facts  :  1.  That  the  policy  of 
the  founders  of  the  Republic  was  to  get  rid  of  slavery,  by 
preventing  its  extension,  and  by  suppressing  the  African 
slave-trade ;  and  2.  That  some  of  the  Southern  States  were 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  435 

among  the  foremost  in  advocating  both  measures,  with  a 
view  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  ultimate  object.  One 
of  the  avowed  objects  of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade 
was  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery  into  the  territories. 
The  same  policy  prevailed  for  many  years.  The  inhabitants 
of  the  Northwest  territory,  or  a  portion  of  it,  (that  portion,  I 
believe,  which  now  constitutes  the  States  of  Indiana  and  Illi- 
nois,) petitioned  Congress  for  the  privilege  of  importing 
slaves  from  the  States ;  and  they  had  sufficient  influence  to 
obtain  two  reports  in  favor  of  a  temporary  suspension  of 
the  sixth  article  of  the  ordinance  of  1787»  But  their 
prayer  was  not  granted.  The  inhabitants  of  Louisiana, 
before  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  petitioned  for  the 
privilege  of  importing  slaves.  Their  prayer  was  denied. 
Wherever  Congress  had  the  power,  it  was  exercised  to 
prevent  the  extension  of  slavery  beyond  the  States  and 
territories  in  which  it  existed. 

I  have  always  been  opposed  to  interference  with  slavery 
where  it  exists.  The  Federal  government  has  no  control 
over  it,  directly  or  indirectly,  within  the  limits  of  the 
States.  It  is  a  civil  relation  over  which  they  have  exclusive 
jurisdiction.  It  must  ever  rest  with  them  to  determine 
whether  it  shall  be  continued  or  abolished  within  their  limits. 
But  it  is  not  so  with  the  territories.  Congress  has  always 
exercised  the  power  of  regulating  their  civil  as  well  as  their 
political  relations.  The  territorial  governments  are  the  crea- 
tures of  Federal  legislation ;  they  have  no  powers  except 
such  as  are  conferred  on  them  by  Congress.  Congress 
stands  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories  in  the  relation  in 
which  the  State  legislatures  stand  to  the  people  of  the  States. 
The  power  of  regulating  the  internal  concerns  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  territories  has  been  exercised  under  every  ad- 
ministration since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

Sir,  I  hold  the  exercise  of  this  power  for  the  exclusion 
of  slavery  from  California  and  New  Mexico  to  be  even  of 
higher  obligation  than  it  was  in  respect  to  the  Northwestern 


4fS6  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

territory.  Slavery  existed  in  that  territory  at  the  time  the 
ordinance  of  1787  was  framed  and  passed.  The  tenure 
of  slaves  owned  hy  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  and 
held  within  it  was  sanctioned  by  the  courts.  The  prohibi- 
tion was  construed  to  extend  only  to  persons  born  or  brought 
into  the  territory  subsequently  to  the  adoption  of  the  ordi- 
nance. 

The  situation  of  California  and  New  Mexico  is  entirely 
different.  Mexico  long  since  abolished  slavery  throughout 
her  limits.  The  abolition  was  first  publicly  proclaimed  by 
President  Guerrero  in  1829,  in  pursuance,  as  the  decree 
declares,  of  extraordinary  powers  vested  in  him.  It  was 
again  declared  to  be  abolished  by  an  act  of  the  sovereign 
Congress  in  1887,  ^^d  again  by  the  Constitution  of  1844*. 
Though,  as  a  nation,  but  imperfectly  civilized,  struggling 
against  the  embarrassments  of  bad  government,  and  dis- 
tracted by  internal  dissensions,  arising,  in  a  great  degree, 
out  of  the  heterogeneous  character  of  her  population,  Mex- 
ico has,  nevertheless,  placed  her  institutions  on  the  broad 
foundation  of  human  liberty,  by  declaring  all  within  her 
limits  to  be  free. 

To  permit  slavery  to  be  carried  into  California  and  New 
Mexico  would  be  to  annul  this  declaration,  and  to  reestablish 
slavery  where  it  has  been  abolished.  I  cannot  consent  to 
any  settlement  of  this  question  which  can  by  possibility 
have  such  a  result. 

Mr.  Berrien.  I  desire  to  inquire  of  the  Senator  from  New  York 
if  he  intends  to  assert  that  the  proclamation  of  President  Guerrero 
was  issued  under  any  power  specially  delegated  to  him  in  reference  to 
this  subject  ? 

I  will  answer  the  Senator  with  pleasure.  I  take  the  de- 
cree as  I  find  it.  I  said  that  the  first  public  declaration  was 
made  by  President  Guerrero  in  18S9j  in  pursuance,  as  his 
decree  stated,  of  extraordinary  powers  conceded  to  him. 
I  am  under  no  obligation  to  inquire  further  in  relation  to 
the  matter,  or  to  look  behind  the  act  for  the  authority  on 
which  it  was  founded. 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  437 

Mr.  Berrien.  I  ask  the  question  with  a  view  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  Senator  was  disposed  to  contend  that  slavery  was  abol- 
ished in  New  Mexico  by  virtue  of  any  other  power  than  this  procla- 
mation ? 

I  suppose  it  was  abolished  by  virtue  of  the  authority  on 
which  the  decree  was  made.  I  have  the  decree,  and  will 
read  it,  if  the  Senator  from  Georgia  desires  it. 

Mr.  Berrien.  The  Senator  is  not  aware,  perhaps,  of  the  fact,  that 
the  power  granted  to  the  President  was  given  him  for  the  purpose  of 
repelling  invasion,  and  had  no  other  object.  I  would  propound  another 
question :  If  slavery  was  abolished  by  force  of  the  proclamation  of 
President  Guerrero,  in  1829,  what  slavery  remained  in  Mexico  to 
be  abolished  by  the  act  of  the  sovereign  Congress,  and  whence  did  the 
sovereign  Congress  derive  the  power  to  do  that  which  belonged  to  the 
municipal  authorities  of  the  several  States  exclusively  ? 

I  prefer  not  to  answer  the  inquiry  of  the  Senator;  it  will 
require  a  diversion  from  the  course  of  my  remarks,  which  I 
do  not  care  to  make.^  I  repeat,  the  first  public  declaration 
that  slavery  was  abolished  was  made  in  1 S29  ;  the  next  by 
the  Congress  of  1 887  j  and  they  were  virtually  reaffirmed 
by  the  constitution  of  1844<.  I  do  not  design  now  to  go 
beyond  the  limits  of  these  executive,  legislative,  and  constitu-* 
tional  acts,  to  inquire  into  the  authority  upon  which  they 
rested.  I  stated,  when  I  was  interrupted,  that  the  effect  of 
carrying  slavery  into  California  would  be  to  subvert  the 
prohibition  contained  in  these  acts.  This  is  the  first  great 
objection.  The  second  is,  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  the 
community  at  large,  by  promoting  the  multiplication  of  a  race 
which  adds  neither  to  the  intellectual  nor  physical  power 
of  the  body  politic,  and  which  excludes  free  labor  as  far  as 
it  extends  the  labor  of  slaves.  I  consider  this  one  of  the 
greatest  objections  to  it.  It  should  be  our  object  to  promote, 
in  every  constitutional  way,  the  extension  of  free  labor, 
and  the  most  effectual  is  to  devote  the  unoccupied  spaces  of 
the  West  to  the  white  race.  The  third  objection  is,  that  it 
would  be  unjust  to  California  and  New  Mexico.  They  have 
no  slaves.  I  believe  I  am  authorized  to  say,  they  desire  none. 
1  See  Appendix,  No.  5. 


438  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

Mr.  FoOTE.  I  would  inquire  of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  if  he 
considers  that  any  injustice  will  result  to  California  and  New  Mexico, 
by  allowing  the  people  of  those  territories  to  do  with  this  matter  as  they 
please  ? 

I  am  in  favor  of  doing  what  the  fathers  of  the  Republic 
did  in  relation  to  the  Northwestern  territory,  —  of  prevent- 
ing the  extension  to  California  of  what  they  considered,  and 
what  I  consider,  a  great  evil.  If  we  carry  slavery  into  New 
Mexico  and  California,  we  shall  do  it  against  the  wishes 
of  the  people  there.  They  have  no  slaves  now,  and  we 
should  plant  slavery  where  it  does  not  exist.  We  should 
stand  before  the  world  in  the  same  relation  in  which  Great 
Britain  stood  to  her  American  colonies.  She  allowed  sla- 
very to  be  carried  into  those  colonies  against  their  wishes, 
and,  in  some  instances,  against  their  earnest  remonstrances. 

The  introduction  of  slavery  into  California  and  New 
Mexico,  as  I  conceive,  would  be  the  more  indefensible,  as 
there  is  nothing  in  the  soil  and  climate  which  renders  the 
labor  of  the  African  race  necessary,  —  nothing  that  makes 
it  unsafe  or  oppressive  for  whites  to  be  employed  in  pro- 
ductive industry  under  any  of  its  forms.  New  Mexico 
consists,  for  the  most  part,  of  mountains,  with  narrow  valleys 
between,  which  require  to  be  watered  by  artificial  means. 
There  is  no  need  of  the  African  race.  A  large  portion  of 
California  is  elevated  and  broken.  It  yields  nothing  to  the 
production  of  which  slave  labor  is  even  claimed  to  be  indis- 
pensable. Much  of  the  value  of  that  territory  consists  in 
the  maritime  valley  which  lies  on  the  Pacific.  It  is  about 
five  hundred  miles  long,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  wide, 
with  an  area  of  some  seventy-five  thousand  square  miles. 
The  breezes  from  the  Pacific  moderate  the  temperature,  and 
the  mountains  on  the  east,  rising  to  the  height  of  thousands 
of  feet,  collect  and  precipitate  the  moisture  of  the  atmosphere, 
and  pour  it  down  in  fertiHzing  streams  into  the  valley  below. 
It  is  said  by  Fremont  to  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  Italy 
in  soil,  climate,  and  capacity  for  production.     It  is  perhaps 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  439 

the  finest  region  of  the  same  extent  in  the  western  hemisphere. 
The  vine,  the  olive,  and  the  fig,  the  infinite  variety  of  fruits 
and  grains  which  are  produced  within  the  tropics,  are  to  be 
found  in  California.  Nature  has,  in  a  word,  lavished  upon 
it  her  choicest  gifts.  In  the  recent  discoveries  of  gold, 
there  is  much  to  be  deplored.  Let  us  hope  that  it  will  soon 
become  exhausted,  and  that  the  steady  pursuits  of  agricul- 
tural, commercial,  and  mechanical  industry,  by  which  alone 
nations  are  made  prosperous,  may  constitute  the  sole  objects 
of  application.  There  is  no  need  of  blacks  in  California; 
the  white  race  can  labor  there  without  difficulty.  The  pro- 
ductions are  such  as  to  require  the  care  and  intelligence  of 
the  more  intellectual  race.  It  would  be  a  perversion  of  the 
purposes  of  nature,  in  more  senses  than  one,  to  carry  slaves 
there. 

I  believe  this  will  be  the  effect  of  the  amendment  of  the 
Senator  from  Wisconsin,  but  not  by  virtue  of  any  right  con- 
ferred by  the  Constitution.  I  do  not  acknowledge  the  exist- 
ence of  any  such  right.  I  speak  of  practical  effects.  Slaves 
have  been  carried,  and  always  will  be  carried,  wherever  they 
are  not  prohibited.  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Missouri  are 
in  the  same  range  of  States.  The  fortieth  parallel  of  lati- 
tude divides  them  all.  The  influences  of  soil  and  climate  are 
much  the  same  in  each.  From  the  first  three,  slavery  has 
been  excluded  by  the  ordinance  of  1787'  The  last  has  been 
overrun  with  slavery  for  want  of  a  prohibition.  The  fate 
of  California  in  this  respect  will  be  settled  by  similar  laws. 
I  believe  we  shall,  by  the  amendment  under  consideration, 
lay  the  foundation  of  a  contest  among  the  inhabitants  of 
California,  far  more  disastrous  than  their  present  disorgani- 
zation. I  hold  it  to  be  our  duty  to  settle  this  question  our- 
selves, instead  of  sending  it  out  to  the  Pacific  to  distract 
our  countrymen  in  laying  the  foundation  of  a  new  govern- 
ment. 

I  have  but  one  more  consideration  to  present  in  connec- 
tion with  this  topic ;  and  I  submit  whether  this  ought  not 


440  SPEECHES   IN   THE    SENATE. 

to  weigh  much  with  us  all '?  When  the  war  with  Mexico 
was  commenced,  we  were  charged  with  the  intention  of  ac- 
quiring territory  with  a  view  to  carrying  slaves  into  it. 
The  charge  was  denied.  We  repelled  the  imputation,  as 
doing  injustice  to  our  motives.  Yet,  in  the  very  first  at- 
tempt to  establish  a  government  for  that  territory,  the  right 
is  insisted  upon  —  the  purpose  is  confessed.  Whether  the 
Mexican  government  was  aware  of  this  imputation,  I  do 
not  know ;  but  in  the  negotiation  with  Mr.  Trist,  the  Mexi- 
can commissioners  wished  us  to  stipulate  not  to  carry  slavery 
into  the  territory  which  was  proposed  to  be  ceded. 

Mr.  FooTE.  Will  the  honorable  Senator  from  New  York  allow  me 
to  propound  a  question  to  him  ?  That  question  is  this :  Who,  from 
the  South,  either  here  or  elsewhere,  has  avowed  any  such  purpose  ? 
Had  Southern  Senators  insisted  upon  anything  but  that  Congress  shall 
not  legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories  at  all  ?  Have 
we  asked  Congress  to  legislate  for  the  introduction  of  slavery,  or 
avowed  any  purpose  of  doing  anything  except  to  resist  unconstitutional 
encroachment  ? 

I  was  speaking  of  an  avowed  purpose  to  carry  slaves  into 
California;  and  I  thought  I  understood  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi  not  only  as  asserting  the  right,  but  as  supporting 
his  argument  by  contending  that  a  portion  of  the  country 
was  likely  to  become  a  slaveholding  region. 

Mr.  FoOTE.  I  said  this,  on  that  point:  It  is  well  known  that  slavery 
is  adapted  to  only  a  small  portion  of  this  territory.  Believing  this  to 
be  the  case,  I  urged  that  the  moderation  and  forbearance  of  the  South, 
in  order  to  establish  a  territorial  government  affording  protection  to 
the  people  of  these  territories,  is  strikingly  exhibited  in  her  not  urging 
her  right,  in  any  shape  or  form,  to  be  authorized  specially  by  law  to 
carry  slaves  there.     We  ask  nothing  but  to  he  let  alone, 

1  cannot  consent  to  go  into  this  discussion  now.  I  said, 
that  whether  the  Mexican  government  was  aware  of  the 
imputation  cast  upon  us,  I  did  not  know ;  but  that  in  the 
negotiation  with  Mr.  Trist,  the  Mexican  commissioners 
wished  us  to  stipulate  that  we  should  not  allow  slavery  to 
be  established  in  any  territory  they  should  cede  to  us.     T 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  44,1 

will  read  a  brief  extract  from  a  letter  addressed  by  Mr. 
Trist  to  Mr.  Buchanan  upon  this  subject,  while  the  negotia- 
tion was  pending.  It  is  dated  the  4th  September,  184<7, 
and  is  contained  in  a  document  printed  by  order  of  the 
Senate. 

"  Among  the  points  which  came  under  discussion  was  the  exclusion 
of  slavery  from  all  territory  which  should  pass  from  Mexico.  In  the 
course  of  their  remarks  on  the  subject,  I  was  told,  that,  if  it  were  pro- 
posed to  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  part  with  a  portion  of  their 
territory  in  order  that  the  Inquisition  should  be  therein  established,  the 
proposal  could  not  excite  stronger  feelings  of  abhorrence  than  those 
awakened  in  Mexico  by  the  prospect  of  the  introduction  of  slavery  in 
any  territory  parted  with  by  her." 

I  could  make  no  comment  on  this  correspondence,  if  I 
were  disposed,  which  would  be  half  so  eloquent  as  the  facts. 
These  Mexicans,  whom  we  have  been  accustomed  to  consider 
half-civilized,  vanquished  in  the  field,  driven  from  their  capi- 
tal, compelled  to  make  peace  with  us  almost  on  our  own 
terms,  and  forced  to  cede  a  portion  of  their  territory,  im- 
plore us  not  to  carry  slavery  into  it.  Sir,  I  ask  how  should 
we  stand  before  the  world,  liberal  and  enlightened  as  we 
are,  proclaiming  to  mankind  the  principle  of  human  liberty 
as  one  of  the  inalienable  rights  of  our  race,  if  we  were  to 
disregard  these  entreaties  % 

Mr.  Mason.  Does  the  Senator  refer  to  the  petition  which  has  been 
presented  from  New  Mexico  ? 

No,  sir;  I  refer  to  Mr.  Trist's  negotiation  in  Mexico,  and 
the  representations  made  to  him  during  an  interview  with 
the  Mexican  commissioners. 

Mr.  Rusk.  I  wish  to  ask  the  honorable  Senator  whether  he  does 
not  know  that  the  Mexican  commissioners  negotiated  the  treaty  under 
the  influence  of  an  agent  of  the  British  government  ? 

I  suppose  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  treaty  is  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  feelings  and  wishes  of  the  Mexican 
people  on  this  subject.  Their  repeated  declarations  in  re- 
spect to  the  abolition  of  slavery  prove  it,  under  whatever 
influences  the  treaty  may  have  been  framed. 

56 


4,4<2  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

Mr.  President,  two  years  ago,  when  I  first  addressed  the 
Senate  upon  this  subject,  under  the  instructions  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  I  said  that,  by  no  instrumentaHty  of  hers, 
should  slavery  be  carried  into  any  portion  of  this  conti- 
nent which  is  free.  I  repeat  the  declaration  now :  by  no  act, 
by  no  acquiescence  of  hers,  shall  slavery  be  carried  where 
it  does  not  exist.  I  said  at  the  same  time,  that,  in  whatever 
manner  this  question  should  be  settled,  if  it  should  be  de- 
cided against  her  views  of  justice  and  right,  her  devotion  to 
the  Union  and  to  her  sister-States  should  remain  unshaken 
and  unimpaired.  Speaking  in  her  name,  and  for  the  last 
time  within  these  walls,  I  repeat  this  declaration  also.  She 
does  not  believe  in  the  possibility  of  disunion.  I  am  thankful 
that  her  faith  is  also  mine.  My  confidence  is  founded  upon 
the  disinterestedness  of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  who 
derive  their  subsistence  from  the  soil,  and  whose  attachment 
is  strong  in  proportion  to  their  close  communion  with  it. 
They  have  incorporated  with  it  the  labor  of  their  own  hands. 
It  has  given  them  back  weaUh  and  health  and  strength,  — 
health  to  enjoy,  and  strength  to  defend  what  they  possess. 
In  seasons  of  tranquillity  and  peace  they  are  unseen,  too 
often,  perhaps,  forgotten  ;  but  it  is  in  their  silent  and  sober 
toil  that  the  public  prosperity  is  wrought  out.  It  is  only  in 
the  hour  of  peril  that  they  come  forth  from  a  thousand  hills 
and  valleys  and  plains  to  sustain  with  strong  arms  the  coun- 
try they  have  made  prosperous.  In  them  the  Union  will 
find  its  surest  protectors.  They  are  too  virtuous  and  too 
independent  to  be  corrupted.  They  are  spread  over  too 
broad  a  surface  for  the  work  of  seduction.  It  is  in  towns 
and  public  assemblies,  where  men  are  concentrated,  that  the 
tempter  can  with  more  assurance  sit  down,  as  of  old,  in  the 
guise  of  friendship,  and  whisper  into  the  unsuspecting  or 
the  willing  ear  the  lesson  of  disobedience  and  treachery. 
From  this  danger  the  great  body  of  the  people  are  secure. 
And  let  us  be  assured  that  they  will  never  permit  the  ban- 
ner which  floats  over  them  at  home,  and  carries  their  name 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4^3 

to  every  sea,  to  be  torn  down,  either  by  internal  dissension 
or  external  violence.  Such  is  my  firm,  my  unalterable  con- 
viction. But,  if  I  am  mistaken  in  all  this,  —  if  the  span- 
gled field  it  bears  aloft  is  destined  to  be  broken  up,  —  then 
my  prayer  will  be,  that  the  star  which  represents  New  York 
in  the  constellation  of  States  may  stand  fixed  until  every 
other  shall  have  fallen ! 


APPENDIX,   No.   1. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  plan  :  — 

The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  plan  for  the  temporary  govern- 
ment of  the  Western  Territory,  have  agreed  to  the  following  resolutions : 

Resolved^  That  the  territory  ceded  or  to  be  ceded  by  individual  States 
to  the  United  States,  whensoever  the  same  shall  have  been  purchased 
of  the  Indian  inhabitants,  and  offered  for  sale  by  the  United  States,  shall 
be  formed  into  distinct  States,  bounded  in  the  following  manner,  as 
nearly  as  such  cessions  will  admit,  —  that  is  to  say :  northwardly  and 
southwardly  by  parallels  of  latitude,  so  that  each  State  shall  compre- 
hend, from  south  to  north,  two  degrees  of  latitude,  beginning  to  count 
from  the  completion  of  thirty-one  degrees  north  of  the  equator :  but 
any  territory  northwardly  of  the  forty-seventh  degree  shall  make  part 
of  the  State  next  below  ;  and  eastwardly  and  westwardly  they  shall  be 
bounded,  those  on  the  Mississippi  by  that  river  on  one  side,  and  the 
meridian  of  the  lowest  point  of  the  rapids  of  Ohio  on  the  other  ;  and 
those  adjoining  on  the  east  by  the  same  meridian  on  their  western  side, 
and  on  their  eastern  by  the  meridian  of  the  western  cape  of  the  mouth 
of  the  Great  Kanawha  ;  and,  the  territory  eastward  of  this  last  merid- 
ian, between  the  Ohio,  Lake  Erie,  and  Pennsylvania,  shall  be  one  State. 

That  the  settlers  within  the  territory  so  to  be  purchased  and  offered 
for  sale,  shall,  either  on  their  own  petition,  or  on  the  order  of  Congress, 
receive  authority  from  them,  with  appointments  of  time  and  place  for 
their  free  males,  of  full  age,  to  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  temporary  government,  to  adopt  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
any  one  of  these  States,  so  that  such  laws  nevertheless  shall  be  subject 
to  alteration  by  their  ordinary  legislature  ;  and  to  erect,  subject  to  a 
like  alteration,  counties  or  townships  for  the  election  of  members  for 
their  legislature. 

That  such  temporary  government  shall  only  continue  in  force  in  any 


44,4.  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

State  until  it  shall  have  acquired  twenty  thousand  free  inhabitants ; 
when,  giving  due  proof  thereof  to  Congress,  they  shall  receive  from 
them  authority,  with  appointments  of  time  and  place,  to  call  a  conven- 
tion of  representatives  to  establish  a  permanent  constitution  and  gov- 
ernment for  themselves  :  Provided,  That  both  the  temporary  and  per- 
manent governments  be  established  on  these  principles  as  their  basis  : 
1.  [That  they  shall  forever  remain  a  part  of  the  United  States  of 
America  ;]  2.  That,  in  their  persons,  property,  and  territory,  they  shall 
be  subject  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  as- 
sembled, and  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation  in  all  those  cases  in 
which  the  original  States  shall  be  so  subject ;  3.  That  they  shall  be 
subject  to  pay  a  part  of  the  Federal  debts  contracted  or  to  be  con- 
tracted, to  be  apportioned  on  them  by  Congress  according  to  the  same 
common  rule  and  measure  by  which  apportionments  thereof  shall  be 
made  on  the  other  States ;  4.  That  their  respective  governments  shall 
be  in  republican  forms,  and  shall  admit  no  person  to  be  a  citizen  who 
holds  any  hereditary  title  ;  5.  That  after  the  year  1800  of  the  Christian 
era  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any  of 
the  said  States,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted  to  have  been  personally  guilty. 

That,  whensoever  any  of  the  said  States  shall  have,  of  free  inhab- 
itants, as  many  as  shall  then  be  in  any  one  of  the  least  numerous  of  the 
thirteen  original  States,  such  State  shall  be  admitted  by  its  delegates 
into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
said  original  States  :  after  which  the  assent  of  two  thirds  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  be  requisite  in  all  those  cases  where- 
in, by  the  Confederation,  the  assent  of  nine  States  is  now  required : 
Provided,  The  consent  of  nine  States  to  such  admission  may  be  ob- 
tained according  to  the  eleventh  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 
Until  such  admission,  by  their  delegates  into  Congress,  any  of  the  said 
States,  after  the  establishment  of  their  temporary  government,  shall 
have  authority  to  keep  a  sitting  member  in  Congress,  with  right  of  de- 
bating but  not  of  voting. 

That  the  territory  northward  of  the  forty-fifth  degree,  that  is  to  say, 
of  the  completion  of  forty-five  degrees  from  the  equator,  and  extend- 
ing to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  shall  be  called  Sylvania. 

That  of  the  territory  under  the  forty-fifth  and  forty-fourth  degrees, 
that  which  lies  westward  of  Lake  Michigan,  shall  be  called  Michi- 
GANIA ;  and  that  which  is  eastward  thereof,  within  the  peninsula 
'formed  by  the  lakes  and  waters  of  Michigan,  Huron,  St.  Clair,  and 
Erie,  shall  be  called  Cherronesus,  and  shall  include  any  part  of  the 
peninsula  which  may  extend  above  the  forty-fifth  degree. 

Of  the  territory  under  the  forty-third  and  forty-second  degrees,  that 
to  the  westward,  through  which  the  Assenisipi  or  Rock  river  runs,  shall 


TERRITORIES   ACQUIRED   FROM  MEXICO.  44,5 

be  called  Assenisipia  ;  and  that  to  the  eastward,  in  which  are  the  foun- 
tains of  the  Muskingum,  the  two  Miamies,  of  the  Ohio,  the  Wabash, 
the  Illinois,  the  Miami  of  the  Lake,  and  Sandusky  rivers,  shall  be  called 
Metropotamia. 

Of  the  territory  which  lies  under  the  forty-first  and  fortieth  degrees, 
the  western,  through  which  the  river  Illinois  runs,  shall  be  called  Illi- 
NOiA ;  that  next  adjoining  to  the  eastward  Saratoga  ;  and  that  be- 
tween this  last  and  Pennsylvania,  and  extending  from  the  Ohio  to  Lake 
Erie,  shall  be  called  Washington. 

Of  the  territory  which  lies  under  the  thirty-ninth  and  thirty-eighth 
degrees,  to  which  shall  be  added  so  much  of  the  point  of  land  within 
the  fork  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  as  lies  under  the  thirty-seventh 
degree,  that  to  the  westward,  within  and  adjacent  to  which  are  the  con- 
fluences of  the  rivers  Wabash,  Shawanee,  Tanissee,  Ohio,  Illinois, 
Mississippi,  and  Missouri,  shall  be  called  Poltpotamia  ;  and  that  to 
the  eastward,  further  up  the  Ohio,  otherwise  called  the  Pelisipi,  shall 
be  called  Pelisipia. 

That  the  preceding  articles  shall  be  formed  into  a  charter  of  compact, 
shall  be  duly  executed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  Con- 
gress assembled,  under  his  hand  and  the  seal  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  promulgated,  and  shall  stand  as  fundamental  constitutions  be- 
tween the  thirteen  original  States  and  those  newly  described,  unaltera- 
ble but  by  the  joint  consent  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled, 
and  of  the  particular  State  within  which  such  alteration  is  proposed  to 
be  made. 

This  paper  is  indorsed  as  follows,  in  a  different  handwrit- 
ing, supposed  to  be  that  of  a  clerk  :  "  Report  —  Mr.  Jefferson, 
Mr.  Chase,  Mr.  Howell." 

Washington,  February  20,  1849. 

I  certify,  that,  at  the  request  of  my  father,  and  with  the  permission 
of  Mr.  Buchanan,  Secretary  of  State,  the  foregoing  copy  of  "  a  plan 
for  the  temporary  government  of  the  Western  Territory  "  was  made 
by  me  from  the  original,  deposited  in  the  State  Department  among  the 
archives  of  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation ;  and  that  I  compared 
the  copy  with  the  original,  with  the  assistance  of  Lund  Washington, 
Jr.,  Esq.,  and  found  it  correct.  Morgan  Dix. 


APPENDIX,  No.  2. 

The  following  is  the  vote  on  the  anti-slavery  clause  of  Jef- 
ferson, above  given,  April  19,  1784 :  — 


446  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

New  Hampshire Mr.  Foster,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Blanchard,  ay  [  ^^' 

Massachusetts Mr.  Gerry,  ay  > 

Mr.  Patridge,  ay  |  ^^' 

Rhode  Island Mr.  Ellery,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Howell,  ay  j  ^^' 

Connecticut Mr.  Sherman,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Wadsworth,  ay  )  ^^* 

New  York Mr.  De  Witt,  ay  1 

Mr.  Paine,  ay  )  ^^* 

New  Jersey Mr.  Dick,  ay       * 

Pennsylvania Mr.  Mifflin,  ay ") 

]\Ir.  Montgomery,  ay  >•  ay. 

Mr.  Hand,  ay  ) 

Maryland Mr.  McHenry,  no  ) 

Mr.  Stone,  no  j  ^^* 

Virginia Mr.  Jefferson,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Hardy,  no  >-no. 

Mr.  Mercer,  no  ) 

North  Carolina Mr.  Williamson,  ay  1  ,. 

Mr.  Spaight,  no 

South  Carolina Mr.  Read,  no 

Mr.  Beresford,  no 
[Journals  of  Congress,  (  Wag  S^  Gideon,)  Vol.  IV.  p.  373.] 


no. 


APPENDIX,  No.  3. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  Mr.  King's  proposition  :  — 

"  That  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in 
any  of  the  States  described  in  the  resolve  of  Congress  of  the  23d  of 
April,  1784,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party 
shall  have  been  personally  guilty ;  and  that  this  regulation  shall  be  an 
article  of  compact,  and  remain  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Consti- 
tution, between  the  thirteen  original  States  and  each  of  the  States  de- 
scribed in  the  said  resolve  of  the  23d  of  April,  1784." 

On  the  question  for  commitment,  the  yeas  and  nays  being 
required  by  Mr.  King,  the  vote  was  as  follows :  — 

New  Hampshire Mr.  Foster,  ay  \ 

Mr.  Long,  ay  )    ^* 

Massachusetts Mr.  Holten,  ay  \ 

Mr.  King,  ay  j  ^^* 

Rhode  Island Mr.  Ellery,  ^^  I    v 

Mr.  Howell,  ay)    ^* 

*  The  asterisk  opposite  the  name  of  could  not  be  represented  by  less  than 
Mr.  Dick,  of  New  Jersey,  indicates  that  two  members  or  delegates.  (See  sect.  2, 
the  vote  was  not  counted,  as  a  State    art.  6,  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation.) 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  4,47 

Connecticut Mr.  Cook,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Johnson,  ay  j  ^^* 

New  York Mr.  W.  Livingston,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Piatt,  avl^y- 


ay 

New  Jersey Mr.  Beatty,  ay 

Mr.  Cadwalader,  ay  J-  ay. 

Mr.  Stewart,  ay  ) 

Pennsylvania Mr.  Gardner,  ay  ) 

Mr.  W.  Henry,  ay  )  ^^' 

Maryland Mr.  McHenry,  no  ) 

Mr.  J.  Henry,  ay  >  ay. 

Mr.  Hindman,  ay  ) 

Virginia Mr.  Hardy,  no  i 

Mr.  Lee,  no  >-  no. 

Mr.  Grayson,  ay  ) 

North   Carolina Mr.  Spaight,  no  \ 

Mr.  Sitgreaves,  no ) 

South  Carolina Mr.  Bull,  no 

Mr.  Pinckney,  no 

Georgia Mr.  Houston,  no 

{^Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  IV.  p.  481.] 

The  vote  was  taken  on  the  16th  of  March,  1785. 


>  no. 


APPENDIX,  No.  4. 

The  sixth  article  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  is  inserted  here 
to  show  how  far  it  conforms  in  language  to  the  anti-slavery 
proposition  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  1784,  and  that  of  Mr.  Kin^ 
in  1785:— 

"  That  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the 
said  territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted :  Provided  always.  That  any  per- 
son escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed  in  any  one  of  the  original  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  law- 
fully reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or 
service  as  aforesaid." 

On  the  13th  July,  1787,  the  ordinance  of  which  the  above 
is  a  part  was  passed  by  the  following  vote :  — 

Massachusetts Mr.  Holten,  ay  \ 

Mr.  Dane,  ay  )    ^* 

New  York Mr.  Smith,  '  ay  S 

Mr.  Haring,  ay  >-ay. 

Mr.  Yates,  no  ) 

New  Jersey Mr.  Clarke,  ay  \ 

ayj 


Mr.  Scheurman,      ayj    ^' 


448  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

Delaware Mr.  Kearny,  ay  ) 

Mr.  Mitchell,  ay  [  ^^• 

Virginia Mj-.  Grayson,  ay  S 

Mr.  R.  H.  Lee,  ay  [•  ay. 

Mr.  Carrington,  ay) 

North  Carolina Mr.  Blount,  ay  | 

Mr.  Hawkins,  ayj  ^^* 

South  Carolina Mr.  Kean,  ay  ) 

Mr.  linger,  ay  )  ^^* 

Georgia Mr.  Few,  ay  1 

Mr.  Pierce,  ay  j  ^^* 
[^Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  IV.  p.  754.] 


APPENDIX,  No.  5. 

The  answer  which  Mr.  Dix  declined  making  to  Mr.  Ber- 
rien, from  an  unwillingness  to  be  further  interrupted  in  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  he  now  proceeds  to  give. 

The  decree  of  President  Guerrero  will  be  found,  as  indi- 
cated below,  in  the  collection  of  laws  and  decrees  of  the 
General  Congress  of  Mexico.  It  is  classed  among  the  de- 
crees made  by  the  government  by  virtue  of  extraordinary 
powers,  and  the  original  is  in  the  following  words  :  — 

ABOLICION  DE   LA  ESCLAVITUD. 

El  Presidente  de  los  Estados  Unidos  Mejicanos  a  los  habitantes  de  la 
republica,  sabed : 

Que  deseando  seiialar  en  el  ano  de  1829,  el  aniversario  de  la  inde- 
pendencia  con  un  acto  de  justicia  y  de  beneficencia  nacional  querefluyia 
en  beneficio  y  sosten  de  bien  tan  apreciable  ;  que  afiance  mas  y  mas  la 
tranquilidad  pubUca  ;  que  coopere  al  engrandecimiento  de  la  repubUca,  y 
que  reintegre  h  una  parte  desgraciado  de  sus  habitantes  en  los  derechos 
sagrados  que  les  did  naturaleza  y  proteje  la  nacion  por  leyes  sabias  y 
justas,  conforme  a  lo  dispuesto  por  el  art.  30,  de  la  acta  constitutiva ; 
usando  de  las  facultades  extraordinarias  que  me  estkn  concedidas,  he 
venido  en  decretar : 

1.  Queda  aboUda  la  esclavitud  en  la  republica. 

2.  Son  por  consiguiente  libres  los  que  hasta  hoy  se  habian  conside- 
rado  como  esclavos. 

3.  Cuando  las  circunstancias  del  erario  lo  permitan,  se  indemnizark 
a  los  proprietarios  de  esclavos  en  los  terminos  que  dispusieren  las  leyes. 

Mejico,  15  de  Setiembre  de  1829.   A.  D.   Jose  Maria  de  Bocanegra. 
[Coleccion  de  Leyes  y  Decretos,  etc.,  en  los  afios  de  1829  y  1830, 
pag.  147.] 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  44,9 

[Translation.] 
ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY. 

The  President  of  the  United  Mexican  States  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  republic : 

Desiring  to  signalize,  in  the  year  1829,  the  anniversary  of  Indepen- 
dence by  an  act  of  national  justice  and  beneficence,  which  may  tend  to 
the  benefit  and  support  of  so  important  a  good  ;  which  may  strengthen 
more  and  more  the  public  tranquillity ;  which  may  cooperate  in  the  ag- 
grandizement of  the  republic ;  and  which  may  restore  to  an  unfortunate 
portion  of  its  inhabitants  the  sacred  rights  which  nature  gave  them,  and 
protect  the  nation  by  wise  and  just  laws,  in  conformity  to  the  provis- 
ion of  the  30th  article  of  the  constitutive  act ;  exercising  the  extraor- 
dinary powers  which  are  conceded  to  me,  I  do  decree  : 

1.  Slavery  is  abolished  in  the  republic. 

2.  Those  who  until  to-day  have  been  considered  slaves,  are  conse- 
quently free. 

3.  When  the  condition  of  the  treasury  will  permit,  the  owners  of  the 
slaves  will  be  indemnified  in  the  manner  which  shall  be  provided  for  by 
law. 

Mexico,  Ihth  Septemher,  1829.    A.  D. 

Jose  Maria  De  Bocanegra. 
[Collection  of  Laws  and  Decrees,  &c.,  in  the  years  1829  and  1830, 
page  147.] 

The  following  addition,  not  contained  in  the  above  collec- 
tion, will  be  found  at  page  147  of  the  "  American  Annual 
Register"  of  1829-30:  — 

And,  in  order  that  the  present  decree  may  have  its  full  and  entire 
execution,  I  order  it  to  be  printed,  published,  and  circulated  to  all  those 
whose  obligation  is  to  have  it  fulfilled. 

Given  in  the  Federal  Palace  of  Mexico,  on  the  15th  of  September, 
1829.  Vincente   Guerrero. 

Lorenzo  De  Zavala. 

The  publication  of  this  decree  in  the  general  collection  of 
the  Laws  and  Decrees  of  Mexico  would  seem  to  afford,  primd 
facie,  sufficient  evidence  of  its  authority.  But  there  are 
higher  evidences.  In  the  law  of  5th  April,  1837,  of  which 
an  extract  is  given  below,  it  is  recognized  in  the  following 
terms :  — 

"  Los  duefios  de  esclavos  manumitidos  por  la  presente  ley  6  por  el 
decreto  de  15  de  Setiembre  de  1829,  seran  indemnizados,"  etc.    [C!oleo- 
cion  de  Leyes  y  Decretos,  etc.,  tomo  8,  pag.  201.] 
57 


450  SPEECHES  IN  THE   SENATE. 

[Translation.}  —  The  masters  of  slaves  manumitted  by  the  present 
law  or  by  the  decree  of  the  15th  of  September,  1829,  shall  be  indem- 
nified, &c.    [Collection  of  Laws  and  Decrees,  &c.,  Vol.  VIII.  page  201.] 

The  extraordinary  powers,  by  virtue  of  which  this  decree 
was  made,  do  not  appear  to  have  been  conferred,  as  Mr.  Ber- 
rien supposes,  for  the  purpose  of  repelling  invasion.  The 
decree  does  not  show  that  they  had  such  a  purpose  at  all. 
They  were  vested  in  the  Executive  by  an  act  of  the  Third 
Constitutional  Congress,  in  the  following  words  : — 

FACULTADES  EXTRAORDINARIAS  AL  GOBIERNO. 

Art.  1.  Le  autoriza  al  ejecutivo  de  la  Federacion  para  adoptar 
cuantos  medidas  scan  necesarias  k  la  conservacion  de  la  independencia, 
del  sistema  actual  de  gobierno,  y  de  la  tranquilidad. 

2.  Por  el  articulo  anterior  no  queda  el  gobierno  autorizado  para  dis- 
poner  de  la  vida  de  Mejicanos,  ni  para  espelerlos  del  territorio  de  la 
Republica. 

3.  Esta  autorizacion  cesard  tanluego  como  el  Congreso  General  se 
reuna  en  sesiones  ordinarias. 

[Coleccion  de  las  Leyes  y  Decretos  expedidos  por  el  Congreso  General, 
etc.,  de  1829  y  1830,  pag.  55.] 

[Translation.] 
EXTRAORDINARY  POWERS  TO  THE  GOVERNMENT. 

Art.  1.  The  Executive  of  the  Confederation  is  authorized  to  adopt 
whatever  measures  may  be  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  indepen- 
dence, of  the  present  system  of  government,  and  of  tranquillity. 

Art.  2.  By  the  preceding  article  the  government  is  not  authorized 
to  dispose  of  the  lives  of  Mexicans,  or  to  expel  them  from  the  territory 
of  the  republic. 

Art.  3.  This  authority  shall  cease  as  soon  as  the  General  Congress 
shall  meet  in  ordinary  sessions. 

[Collection  of  Laws  and  Decrees  made  by  the  General  Congress, 
&c.,  of  1829  and  1830,  page  55.] 

The  powers  conferred  by  the  first  article  are  only  limited 
by  the  provisions  of  the  second  and  third,  excepting  so  far  as 
they  may  be  considered  restrained  by  the  purposes  for  which 
they  were  conferred.  These  purposes  are  very  extensive,  — 
so  much  so  as  to  comprehend  nearly  all  the  great  ends  of 
government.  The  decree  of  President  Guerrero,  as  will  be 
perceived,  has  reference  to  the  very  purposes  for  which  the  ex- 
traordinary powers  were  delegated, — to  support   "  indepen- 


TERRITORIES  ACQUIRED  FROM  MEXICO.  451 

dence "  and  strengthen  the  « public  tranquillity."  The  ex- 
traordinary powers  referred  to  were  conceded  on  the  25th 
August,  1829,  and  the  government  was  required  to  report  to 
the  Congress  to  assemble  in  January,  1830,  the  necessity  that 
existed  in  the  cases  in  which  it  had  exercised  the  powers  con- 
ferred by  the  first  article.  The  Congress  met  in  January,  and 
continued  in  session,  ordinary  and  extraordinary,  with  brief 
intermissions,  till  the  29th  December,  1830.  During  this  pe- 
riod, the  decree  of  Guerrero  was  untouched.  But  on  the 
15th  February,  1831,  a  resolution  was  passed  by  Congress 
declaring  that  the  laws,  decrees,  rules,  orders,  and  provisions, 
which  belong  to  the  legislative  authority,  and  which  the  gov- 
ernment had  made  by  virtue  of  the  extraordinary  powers  re- 
ferred to,  were  subject  to  the  qualification  of  Congress,  and 
were  to  be  without  effect  until  revised  by  the  Chambers. 
There  were,  however,  exceptions  to  the  rule.  How  far  the 
decree  of  Guerrero  was  affected  by  this  declaration,  —  whe- 
ther it  was  an  authority  executed  and  not  to  be  revoked,  or 
whether  it  was  suspended  in  its  operation  until  1837,  —  it  is 
not  necessary  to  inquire.  The  subsequent  recognition  of  the 
decree  by  legislative  and  constitutional  enactments  disposes 
of  the  question  of  authority.  It  is  hardly  admissible  in  ua 
to  dispute  the  validity  of  an  act  of  the  Mexican  government 
thus  recognized  in  Mexico;  or  to  assert,  in  the  face  of  that 
recognition,  that  the  power  of  abolishing  slavery  belonged  to 
the  municipal  authorities  of  the  several  States. 

The  act  of  Congress  of  1837,  referred  to  by  Mr.  Dix,  is  in 
the  following  words :  — 

"  Queda  abolida,  sin  escepcion  alguna,  la  esclavitud  en  toda  la  repii- 
hlica  :  Abril  5,  de  1837."  [Coleccion  de  Leyes  y  Decretos,  etc.,  tomo 
8,pag.  201.] 

[Translation.]  —  Slavery  is  forever  abolished,  without  any  exception, 
in  the  whole  republic :  April  5j  1837.  [Collection  of  Laws  and  De- 
crees of  the  General  Congress  of  the  United  Mexican  States,  VoL 
VIII.  page  201.] 

The  constitution  of  1844  (of  Tacubaya)  reiterates  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  following  words  :  — 

"  Slavery  is  forever  prohibited."  —  Thompson's  Mexico,  page  180. 
It  will  be  perceived  that  the  constitution  of  1844  does  not 
abolish  slavery  :  it  prohibits  it.     From  the  difference  between 


452  SPEECHES  m   THE  SENATE. 

the  phraseology  of  the  decree  of  1829  and  the  act  of  Congress 
of  1837  and  that  of  the  constitution  of  1844,-  is  it  not  fairly 
to  be  inferred  that  the  latter  designed  to  prohibit  in  the  future 
what  the  two  former  acts  had  abolished  in  the  past  ? 

On  the  strength  of  these  authorities,  Mr.  Dix  asserted  that 
Mexico  had  long  since  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  re- 
public. 


END    OF    VOL.   I. 


mi 


^     lOANDW 


ti^  -.  to 


Tl'SPi* 


(^6572sl0)476-A32 


^-^'^S^s?.., 


IN  STACKS       NOV 29  71 


LD  9-30m-4,^70(N3878s-i>  ilrt..    U-107       .^y. 


5    72 


